Quantcast

Do You Understand the Second Amendment?

Andrew 2013/01/26 09:33:14
Yes, I Understand the Second Amendment and You Are Spot On Accurate!
Yes, I Understand the Second Amendment, But Your Argument Is Flawed!
I Oppose the Second Amendment!
Other!
None of the above
You!
Add Photos & Videos


Understanding the Second Amendment



In order for someone to understand the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, one must be familiar with the history of the American Revolution. Although I am not a scholar on this period of history, I have enough of a grasp of my nation’s beginnings that comprehending it is really quite elementary. Unfortunately, many young people today have been “educated” in those indoctrination centers we call “public schools” and they are building their opinion of the Second Amendment upon a shifting foundation. Like the tower of Pisa, unless bolstered with heavy doses of the concrete (truth), eventually their ideals will come crashing down in a pile of rubble we call reality!



Why did the Framers of our Constitution see fit to include the Right to Bear Arms in the Bill of Rights? There are three reasons that come to mind immediately.



First, the Founders had just recently defeated the British, the World Power of the day in a fight that could never have been won WITHOUT weapons of war! Thankfully, the American Minutemen (militia) were every day farmers, laborers and workers who loved liberty, despised tyranny and POSSESSED FIREARMS! The British made every attempt to confiscate these weapons (sound familiar), but were unable to get sufficient cooperation from their allies in the colonies (Again, sound familiar). When push came to shove at Lexington and Concord, the resistance they faced was too much for them. Even though the Yanks were outgunned and outmanned, thanks to the possession of firearms, they were able to cause enough havoc and consternation among the British forces that eventually, the fight went out of them and they packed up and went home. Do I think that there are elements within our government that seek to RULE over us with an iron hand? Who knows, but the Founders had the wisdom to recollect the conflict and understood that they must make provision to thwart any such ideas of grandeur by future power hungry zealots. I agree with their foresight and the ONLY way that can be changed is to rescind the Second Amendment!



That brings us to point reason #2, the FACT that before there was human government, there were humans who needed to defend themselves against aggressors. These INDIVIDUALS had and still have the RIGHT to defend their lives and their property! That RIGHT came from their Creator and you cannot ask them to lay down the means of defending themselves if and when the occasion arises! The only other means of being protected therefore would be to have a policeman on every block and every hamlet and every country road in this nation. Then, we would be a police state and they could only be trusted as much as the entity that controlled them. The Founders had experienced the British occupation and had seen the soldiers on every corner and that was something the understood could get really out of hand! The natural solution was the Second Amendment!



Lastly, the Framers of our Constitution recognized that governments are not always good, and if left to themselves without restraint, they will be co-opted by strong and persuasive individuals who would seek to control the masses. Ultimately, they would enslave the people and would use deadly force to intimidate them. The only deterrent to such an eventuality was for ALL individuals to have the right to bear arms. This does not assure victory, but it does guarantee that blood will need to be spilled in order to accomplish such domination. That blood will quite likely be the blood of the strongman. Firearms do much to level the playing field as can be noted by the FACT that the colonists were outgunned, yet still prevailed!



As a small side note, individual gun ownership also makes an invasion by outside forces problematic! If some other nation decides to invade America, they can be assured that they will be met with the same resistance that was experienced by the British in 1776!



Opponents of the Second Amendment are trying to convince us that the Right of Firearm Ownership is outdated. They argue that times have changed and that it is no longer necessary, and in fact counterproductive for citizens to possess weapons. They hide their true agenda by suggesting that modern firearms, such as “assault weapons” are much more dangerous than the black powder muskets originally possessed by the colonists at the time of the ratification of the Bill of Rights. True, weaponry has changed, but what can be legally possessed by the citizens today does not compare to the advancements that have been made in this area. In addition, the left is attempting to change the meaning of the term “assault weapons” to guns that have been legal for over 100 years. They wish to confuse the ignorant by equating the semi-automatic military style rifle with the FULLY-automatic and already ILLEGAL machine gun! Other than weight, accuracy and efficiency, very little has changed about these semi-automatic weapons to make them “more dangerous”. I will include here a bit of history regarding the birth of the semi-automatic from Wikipedia that will shed light upon these facts.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semi-automatic_firearm



Regarding the misinformation being propagated by Progressives (Regressives) about “assault weapons”, let me take a brief moment to distinguish the difference between a true assault weapon (fully automated firearm) and the semi-automatic, military style rifle.



A fully automatic assault rifle fires in much the same manner as the semi-automatic with one MAJOR difference. When the trigger of the fully automatic weapon is squeezed, it will continue discharging rounds until either finger pressure is released or the source of ammunition is exhausted. We have all seen battlefield depictions of this firearm in operation where the gun was fed by a belt full of ammunition with seemingly endless capacity. You should also note that every round causes what is known as “kick” or recoil. This causes the aim of the operator to move off the target momentarily. Hence, we discover the reason that these weapons are illegal. After the first round, the machine gun or fully automatic weapon becomes highly inaccurate and extremely dangerous to innocent bystanders. These weapons were intended for war with the purpose of intimidation and spraying bullets indiscriminately at an advancing enemy who is bunched together. Their intention is to kill wound and maim as many of the enemy as possible in as short a time as possible.



I have had the liberals and Progressives (Regressives) ask me why we are not allowed by law to possess Rocket Propelled Grenades (RPG’s), Howitzers, Battle Tanks and Nuclear Weapons. Of course the answer is obvious! All of these weapons have the SAME indiscriminate method of killing. Not only is the intended target in danger, but anyone in close proximity to the intended target as well. This inability to control who receives the projectile makes responsible firing impossible. Therefore, they have been banned and rightly so!



Semi-automatic, military style firearms are distinctly different in the FACT that only one round of ammunition is fired each time the trigger is pulled. Instead of bursts flying lead being sprayed indiscriminately in the direction of the intended victim, one single bullet goes directly in to the point of impact. The shooter must consciously pull the trigger a second time to repeat the action. This is EXACTLY what occurs with a hunting rifle that is semi-automatic. The only difference is the exterior dressing. Many hunting rifles can quickly be converted to “look” like the military style weapon and since the fire in EXACTLY the same manner, there is NO difference! Once again, let me include an educational video that will clarify the distinct differences between the true “assault weapon” and the semi-automatic, military style rifle. (Please note the conversion of the semi-automatic hunting rifle to semi-automatic military style weapon at the end of the video)



http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v;=yATet...



Make no mistake, the agenda of the left is to eventually dispense with ALL firearms from the hands of the citizens of this country. The weapons bans that are being proposed by Diane Feinstein will NOT lessen the “body count” being experienced of late. If she and the Progressives (Regressives) are successful in passing this bill, there will be another incident shortly thereafter where a evil person murders a mass of people with a semi-automatic hunting rifle. Then, what will be the reaction of these cunning deceivers. You guessed it! They will then seek to ban ALL semi-automatic rifles and pistols. Anyone familiar with firearms also knows that a skill individual trained and practice in the use of a pump, lever action, bolt action or revolver can fire as quickly, as accurately and with the same devastating results as the person firing the semi-automatic. So after the ban on all semi-automatic weapons will be the ban of anything that can fire repeatedly without reloading. The goal is to DISARM us, NOT protect us. The goal is to CONTROL us, not make us more safe!



The Second Amendment was included in the Bill of Rights and added to the Constitution with the MAIN purpose of preventing the subjugation of the people from EVER occurring again! For 230 years it has worked successfully. Evil people have access to guns and therefore it is imperative that GOOD people have the same access and RIGHT of possession! I could include here hundreds of quotes from the Founders as to their reason for including the Second Amendment in the Constitution, but we will save that for another time.



Just one more note! If they are successful in enacting this ban and eventually eliminate the Right to Bear Arms. And if you refuse to relinquish your weapons, yet pose NO THREAT to anyone around you, what will they do? They will come to your house and what do you suppose they will bring with them? You guessed it! They will come loaded for bear and if they suspect that you will resist, they will use deadly force! And all for what? Simply because you possessed something they said was NOT your RIGHT to possess. Now let’s suppose you SAY something they deem “unlawful” to SAY! What will they do then? You guessed it again! They will come to your house and do whatever is necessary to silence you!



IF THERE IS NO SECOND AMENDMENT, THERE WILL BE NO FIRST OR ANY OTHER RIGHTS LEFT!

Add a comment above

Top Opinion

  • Jesse-Tired of Liberal Lunacy 2013/01/26 14:07:31
    Yes, I Understand the Second Amendment and You Are Spot On Accurate!
    Jesse-Tired of Liberal Lunacy
    +22
    Perfectly accurate. But if you asked the average kid, no one should have a gun unless they want to go hunt deer. It's funny that Obama has no issue taking our guns away but can provide them to his Muslim brotherhood friends in Egypt whenever they ask for them.

Sort By
  • Most Raves
  • Least Raves
  • Oldest
  • Newest
Opinions

  • DJ 2014/10/14 05:13:43
    Yes, I Understand the Second Amendment and You Are Spot On Accurate!
    DJ
    Excellent read.

    I wish it were 'required' reading.
  • The Sifu 2013/05/10 05:30:37
    Yes, I Understand the Second Amendment and You Are Spot On Accurate!
    The Sifu
    +1
    The treatise here is perfect.
  • Andrew The Sifu 2013/05/27 13:32:41
    Andrew
    +1
    Much appreciated!
  • ProVega 2013/03/05 01:18:44
    Other!
    ProVega
    Yes, I Understand the Second Amendment,
  • Lucy 2013/02/22 00:01:24
    Yes, I Understand the Second Amendment and You Are Spot On Accurate!
    Lucy
    +1
    I really liked y our point that if another country thinks about invading us, they will not only have an army to deal with, but many armed individuals.
  • Andrew Lucy 2013/02/22 07:18:02
    Andrew
    Thank you and thanks for participating!
  • SW 2013/02/12 15:49:09 (edited)
    I Oppose the Second Amendment!
    SW
    I meant "Yes I understand the Second Amendment and your argument is flawed." And by "flawed" i mean "Full of S#$%."



    The level to which gun-nuts rewrite history and their gun-nut followers just accept whatever drivel they make up is amazing.



    There was ONE reason for the Second Amendment. ONE REASON. At the time it was written,we didn't have a standing army. That was it. We needed an armed "Well Regulated Millitia" to "defend a free state" --you know like it ACTUALLY SAYS IN THE GD THING... It doesn't say "To resist your elected government if it you don't like it" It doesn't say "So Bubba and Skeeter can go a-shootin' defendin' their rights. It says "A well-regulated Militia." We could be defended by armed farmers and blacksmiths and inkeepers...



    AT NO TIME did Jefferson or Madison suggest those farmers or inkeepers rise up against their elected government --in fact the whole idea of arming regular people and not having an army was so they WOULD NOT rise up against their elected government.



    All the rest is delusional gun-nut garbage.



    The founders didn't want to have a standing army during peace time. Standing armies are dangerous to Democracy because they tend to bring about military coups (armed people rising up against their government). So Jefferson wanted peopl...















    I meant "Yes I understand the Second Amendment and your argument is flawed." And by "flawed" i mean "Full of S#$%."



    The level to which gun-nuts rewrite history and their gun-nut followers just accept whatever drivel they make up is amazing.



    There was ONE reason for the Second Amendment. ONE REASON. At the time it was written,we didn't have a standing army. That was it. We needed an armed "Well Regulated Millitia" to "defend a free state" --you know like it ACTUALLY SAYS IN THE GD THING... It doesn't say "To resist your elected government if it you don't like it" It doesn't say "So Bubba and Skeeter can go a-shootin' defendin' their rights. It says "A well-regulated Militia." We could be defended by armed farmers and blacksmiths and inkeepers...



    AT NO TIME did Jefferson or Madison suggest those farmers or inkeepers rise up against their elected government --in fact the whole idea of arming regular people and not having an army was so they WOULD NOT rise up against their elected government.



    All the rest is delusional gun-nut garbage.



    The founders didn't want to have a standing army during peace time. Standing armies are dangerous to Democracy because they tend to bring about military coups (armed people rising up against their government). So Jefferson wanted people armed so they could be the army.



    The problem is, just having armed farmers and whatnot for defense--they tend to get their asses kicked by countries that DO have a standing army. So not long later we got ourselves a standing Army.



    We don't need home weapons for the right to bear arms to be preserved... all you have to do is sign up for the "Well Regulated Militia" Just like the frigging thing says.





    Let's say you think the government is being oppressive and tyranical -and you think you want to rise up --you and a some other delusional gun-nuts. What gives you the right to make that call? Did anyone vote for you? What about the people who don't want to rise up... will you shoot them as trators? Gee that's not tyranicall at all...

    Make no mistake: The agenda of the people generating this gun propaganda is not about your "Freedom" or "the constitution" or your "rights" or any of that. It's about selling guns and making as much money as possible. The only "founding father" they care about is Ben Franlin. Cause the NRA for example is a gun manufacturer lobbiest group. They're in it for the money and they're laughing at you guntards all the way to the bank.
    (more)
  • Andrew SW 2013/02/16 09:15:43
    Andrew
    Provision had already been made for a standing army in the main body of the Constitution BEFORE the Bill of Rights was added to it. Either you are completely misinformed or you are lying in an attempt to rewrite history. Besides, why put a permanent amendment into the Constitution when you only mean for it to be temporary? Honestly, does that make sense?
  • phil.ol... SW 2013/03/03 20:42:39
    phil.olding.3
    +1
    The 2nd amendment was written so that people would have rights. Not so that the government would have rights.

    The government is still not guaranteed the right to keep and bear arms. The police, the military, and the militia, DO NOT have the right to keep and bear arms. ONLY the people have that right.

    Because of that, and because our constitution hasn't been changed, all arms that are "necessary to the security of a free state" when in the people's hands, are protected.
  • phil.ol... SW 2013/03/03 20:43:31
    phil.olding.3
    +1
    Nowhere in the 2nd amendment does it say you have to sign up for a well-trained, well-disciplined, well-armed militia in order to have rights.

    It just says you have to be part of "the people" in order to have the right to keep and bear arms.
  • John Galt jr or Ron/jon 2013/02/11 20:55:17
    Other!
    John Galt jr or Ron/jon
    +1
    not to get too far off subject, I have to ask something.

    To those who pervert the standing militia to being all Americans are entitled to own guns,
    How do you reconcile, taking guns away from people who have been convicted of crimes, are they not still Americans?

    What about the states that are now banning gun ownership to those who use medical marijuana?

    What about the banning of guns from those who have order of protection against them?
  • ProudPr... John Ga... 2013/02/11 21:07:47
    ProudProgressive
    +1
    You have touched upon one of the ultimate realities that the gun owners will never, ever concede. The right to keep and bear arms was NEVER intended to be unlimited or unregulated. The word "regulated" in the Second Amendment makes clear beyond debate that control over who would have guns, what guns they would have, and where and how they could or could not use them was ALWAYS a part of the right to bear arms. The one thing that the Second Amendment actually DOES prohibit is for Congress to ban ALL guns. And the fact that it is not only regulated but "well regulated" simply confirms both the need and the obligation of better oversight by Congress than we currently have.
  • phil.ol... ProudPr... 2013/03/04 09:38:46
    phil.olding.3
    +1
    It very clearly protects the right of the people to keep and bear arms because those arms are "necessary to the security of a free state".

    The militia has no right to keep and bear arms. The people do.

    The people have the right to keep and bear arms REGARDLESS of whether they are in a militia.

    Felons can have their right to vote removed - as well as their right to own a gun - because their rights have been removed with "due process of law".

    Well-regulated does not mean well-infringed. A well-regulated militia is well-trained, well-disciplined, and well-armed. It is not controlled by any government entity. It is simply made up of the people - who, coincidentally, are the only ones that have the right to keep and bear arms.
  • John Ga... phil.ol... 2013/03/04 23:02:51
    John Galt jr or Ron/jon
    "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."
  • phil.ol... John Ga... 2013/03/04 23:05:01
    phil.olding.3
    Right. A well-trained, well-disciplined, well-armed group of people is necessary to the security of a free state. As a result, the right of THE PEOPLE to possess, carry, and use, weapons for killing people, SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.

    The militia has no rights. The people do. The people have the right to keep and bear all arms that are "necessary to the security of a free state".
  • John Ga... phil.ol... 2013/03/04 23:13:06
    John Galt jr or Ron/jon
    you keep spewing but you haven't addressed the questions
    answer the questions or shut up...

    How do you reconcile, taking guns away from people who have been convicted of crimes, are they not still Americans?

    What about the states that are now banning gun ownership to those who use medical marijuana?

    What about the banning of guns from those who have order of protection against them?
  • phil.ol... John Ga... 2013/03/04 23:18:17 (edited)
    phil.olding.3
    John - I already answered your question. Because you can't read, let me answer it again.

    "How do you reconcile, taking guns away from people who have been convicted of crimes, are they not still Americans?"

    Here is a quote from my first answer:

    "Felons can have their right to vote removed - as well as their right to own a gun - because their rights have been removed with 'due process of law'."

    Medical marijuana is not relevant, but the reason that all marijuana users are banned from owning guns under FEDERAL law (not STATE - get your facts right) - is because marijuana is a controlled substance that cannot be legally prescribed by federal law. Any unlawful user of a controlled substance (which includes marijuana, and ALL users of it) is banned from owning guns under federal law.

    Is that constitutional? No. Different argument for a different train of thought, and NOT relevant to current discussions here.

    People who have orders of protection have also had their rights removed with due process of law. Is that constitutional? Maybe not, but it prevents a lot of headache for people that have restraining orders against genuinely bad people (and most people that have restraining orders against them are genuinely bad).
  • Andrew John Ga... 2013/02/12 07:01:01 (edited)
    Andrew
    +1
    Personally, I think that one who has paid their debt for their crime should not be restricted from gun ownership. If their sentence for their crime was not sufficient,their sentence should have been longer. No state should have the right to infringe on the rights of individuals to bear arms!
  • phil.ol... Andrew 2013/03/04 09:40:44
    phil.olding.3
    +1
    Personally, I know that most people who are out of prison can't get jobs, typically commit more crimes after being released, and are usually released early because our prison system is a total failure.

    Constitutional rights can be removed - with due process of law. That means felons can have all of their rights taken - like the right to vote.

    This is for the best, typically. Good news, though - the court will typically hear your case to have your right to keep and bear arms reinstated if your rights have been taken from you.
  • John Ga... phil.ol... 2013/03/04 23:14:24
    John Galt jr or Ron/jon
    What about the states that are now banning gun ownership to those who use medical marijuana?
  • phil.ol... John Ga... 2013/03/04 23:21:46
    phil.olding.3
    I just wrote this in another comment answering your question, but here's the same answer, so you know I've answered your question (because apparently you have difficulty reading):


    Medical marijuana is not relevant, but the reason that all marijuana users are banned from owning guns under FEDERAL law (not STATE - get your facts right) - is because marijuana is a controlled substance that cannot be legally prescribed by federal law. Any unlawful user of a controlled substance (which includes marijuana, and ALL users of it) is banned from owning guns under federal law.

    Is that constitutional? No. Different argument for a different train of thought, and NOT relevant to current discussions here.
  • phil.ol... John Ga... 2013/03/04 09:36:31
    phil.olding.3
    +1
    The militia is guaranteed exactly ZERO rights in the 2nd amendment to the US bill of rights.

    The people are guaranteed the right to keep and bear arms. The people are guaranteed the right to assemble.

    Oh, and well-regulated does not mean well-infringed. A well-regulated militia is well-trained, well-disciplined, and well-armed.

    People can have their constitutional rights taken with due process of law. The court system can take your freedom (imprison you), or remove other constitutional rights (felons can't vote, for instance).

    With due process of law, with good reason, your individual rights can be taken.

    2nd amendment rights cannot be taken from all people by majority vote. They can only be taken from an individual, with just cause.

    Arms are necessary to the security of a free state. The arms that people have a right to keep and bear must be so good at killing people, that they can be used to maintain the security of a free state.
  • Flowers 2013/02/11 17:00:33
    Yes, I Understand the Second Amendment and You Are Spot On Accurate!
    Flowers
    +1
    I support the 2nd amendment, and do carry firearms.
    As weapon technology has changed for our government over the years, so too has the need to continue to carry equally advanced weaponry within reason. By this I mean, it would be FOOLISH to assume private citizens should or could properly house missiles and similar weapons but it would be equally foolish to assume muskets would be able to keep up with handguns and firearms that we would be used to HYPOTHETICALLY fight against forces to maintain freedoms.
    Assault weapons CAN BE dangerous, and should come with restrictions to reduce the possibility of it being used by criminals. It's an effort to reduce, not eliminate because any logical person realizes that criminals will obtain whatever the hell they want regardless of standing laws.
  • Flowers Flowers 2013/02/11 17:00:50
    Flowers
    +1
    Our government; local, state, and federal, is overstepping their boundaries regarding gun control and have no problems flat out lying to the public about facts and statistics in order to rationalize and cover up their unlawful regulations. It is our duty as citizens of this country to protect our freedoms from those who work to take them away. This country is unique in that if we were ever invaded by foreign forces of ANY country, majority would have the ability to put up a fairly sustainable fight. Not many countries can say that. If we allow our guns to continue to be stripped away, that risk will come with heavy casualties if we were ever faced with invasion.

    Also, I feel the need to remind people again the high level of gun violence in parts of our country that have the strictest gun laws, and the amount of innocent victims caught in the middle with fatal results. Just like so many other things the government continues to support despite the BLARING evidence to the contrary, just because they say guns should be more heavily regulated and removed completely doesn't mean it's the best or correct action for the citizens.
  • Andrew Flowers 2013/02/11 20:42:14
  • Flowers Andrew 2013/02/11 22:19:26
    Flowers
    +1
    Thanks!
  • ProudProgressive 2013/02/11 16:31:37 (edited)
    Yes, I Understand the Second Amendment, But Your Argument Is Flawed!
    ProudProgressive
    I understand the Second Amendment quite well. But nonsensical historical revisionism like this article make clear that most people don't know and don't want to know the reality. The latest Right Wing nonsense - the claim that the Second Amendment was intended to empower the people to take up arms against their own government - is the most idiotic and nonsensical lie the gun nuts have come up with. No government in the history of the world has ever explicitly provided the means of their own violent overthrow.

    The Second Amendment had one purpose - to keep this nation safe. It was not for self-defense. It was not for defense of property. It was for defense OF THIS NATION. The Framers believed that having a standing peacetime army posed potential dangers. It was the existence of a standing army which the Framers believed created the potential for an oppressive government. By choosing not to have a standing army the Framers ELIMINATED the potential of a tyrannical government which might necessitate civilians taking up arms against their own government. In other words, with no standing army there was no need to make any provisions for the population to oppose their own government by violent means.

    However, the lack of a standing army left us defenseless against an invasion ...

















    I understand the Second Amendment quite well. But nonsensical historical revisionism like this article make clear that most people don't know and don't want to know the reality. The latest Right Wing nonsense - the claim that the Second Amendment was intended to empower the people to take up arms against their own government - is the most idiotic and nonsensical lie the gun nuts have come up with. No government in the history of the world has ever explicitly provided the means of their own violent overthrow.

    The Second Amendment had one purpose - to keep this nation safe. It was not for self-defense. It was not for defense of property. It was for defense OF THIS NATION. The Framers believed that having a standing peacetime army posed potential dangers. It was the existence of a standing army which the Framers believed created the potential for an oppressive government. By choosing not to have a standing army the Framers ELIMINATED the potential of a tyrannical government which might necessitate civilians taking up arms against their own government. In other words, with no standing army there was no need to make any provisions for the population to oppose their own government by violent means.

    However, the lack of a standing army left us defenseless against an invasion or an insurrection. For this reason, the Framers established the concept of a "well regulated militia". The PEOPLE would be our army when we needed them. In the case of an insurrection or an invasion, the PEOPLE would be ready to defend this country. And how? By having the right to bear arms. That is the ONLY reason why the Framers CREATED the right to bear arms in the Constitution. So that IF we were invaded, or IF an insurrection arose, the people would be prepared to DEFEND this country.

    That is why the Second Amendment exists. So that if the United States were attacked from without or within, we would have the means to defend our nation. That is why the right to keep and bear arms exists ONLY to facilitate participation in the actions of a well regulated militia. The reality is that once we established a standing peacetime army the Second Amendment DID become obsolete.

    The intention of the Framers is made clear by Article I of the Constitution, which specifically provides that CONGRESS has the authority:

    To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

    To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

    Note well the three reasons, and the ONLY three reasons, why we have a militia, and why that militia is granted the right to keep and bear arms by the Second Amendment:

    1. to execute the Laws of the Union. Not to oppose them. Not to usurp lawful government authority. Not to assassinate unpopular Presidents. To execute the Laws of the Union.

    2. To suppress Insurrections. Not to facilitate them. Not to encourage them. To STOP them.

    3. To repel Invasions. To keep our soil safe from OUTSIDERS who would seek to overthrow our government.

    The Right Wing can try to rewrite history as much as they want, but they cannot change reality.
    (more)
  • mich52 2013/02/10 14:49:42
  • Andrew mich52 2013/02/10 20:13:36
    Andrew
    Good people have been wrong before and will be wrong in the future! Why do you quote Scalia when normally, you lying Progressives (Regressives) distain the very ground he walks on? Answer, because you will quote even the Bible (which you hate) if you think it serves your purpose!
  • mich52 Andrew 2013/02/10 21:52:20 (edited)
  • Andrew mich52 2013/02/11 07:08:39
    Andrew
    I didn't say only Progressives (Regressives) lie, but Progressivism (Regressivism) IS a big fat lie and most who hold to it do so because they are thieves, wanting what doesn't belong to them.
  • mich52 Andrew 2013/02/11 16:18:17
  • Andrew mich52 2013/02/11 20:50:55
    Andrew
    Incorrect!
  • mich52 Andrew 2013/02/11 22:47:13
  • ProudPr... Andrew 2013/02/11 16:35:47
    ProudProgressive
    +1
    Progressive ideology is the foundation for this country. The Declaration of Independence is the greatest statement of progressive thought ever written.
  • Andrew ProudPr... 2013/02/11 20:50:04
    Andrew
    Yes, but what you believe and what the Founders believed are two different animals! You are a Progressive in name only. You and your like have stolen a good title and bestowed it upon yourselves which is simply more lies!
  • ProudPr... Andrew 2013/02/11 16:34:54
    ProudProgressive
    +1
    Progressives don't lie, especially when it comes to the nation which we created and which we defend against people like whoever wrote this nonsensical article and are actually trying to convince the low capacity conservatives out there that the Second Amendment was intended to empower the people to attack their own government.
  • Andrew ProudPr... 2013/02/11 20:50:26
    Andrew
    Quotes on the Second Amendment
    The Founding Fathers on the Second Amendment
    "I ask, Sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them."
    George Mason
    Co-author of the Second Amendment
    during Virginia's Convention to Ratify the Constitution, 1788


    -----------------------------...

    "A militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves …"
    Richard Henry Lee
    writing in Letters from the Federal Farmer to the Republic, Letter XVIII, May, 1788.


    -----------------------------...

    "The people are not to be disarmed of their weapons. They are left in full posession of them."
    Zachariah Johnson
    Elliot's Debates, vol. 3 "The Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution."


    -----------------------------...

    "… the people are confirmed by the next article in their right to keep and bear their private arms"
    Philadelphia Federal Gazette
    June 18, 1789, Pg. 2, Col. 2
    Article on the Bill of Rights


    -----------------------------...

    "And that the said Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the Press, or the rights of Conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from...








































































































































    Quotes on the Second Amendment
    The Founding Fathers on the Second Amendment
    "I ask, Sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them."
    George Mason
    Co-author of the Second Amendment
    during Virginia's Convention to Ratify the Constitution, 1788


    -----------------------------...

    "A militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves …"
    Richard Henry Lee
    writing in Letters from the Federal Farmer to the Republic, Letter XVIII, May, 1788.


    -----------------------------...

    "The people are not to be disarmed of their weapons. They are left in full posession of them."
    Zachariah Johnson
    Elliot's Debates, vol. 3 "The Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution."


    -----------------------------...

    "… the people are confirmed by the next article in their right to keep and bear their private arms"
    Philadelphia Federal Gazette
    June 18, 1789, Pg. 2, Col. 2
    Article on the Bill of Rights


    -----------------------------...

    "And that the said Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the Press, or the rights of Conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms; …"
    Samuel Adams
    quoted in the Philadelphia Independent Gazetteer, August 20, 1789, "Propositions submitted to the Convention of this State"


    -----------------------------...

    The Founding Fathers on Arms
    "Firearms stand next in importance to the constitution itself. They are the American people's liberty teeth and keystone under independence … from the hour the Pilgrims landed to the present day, events, occurences and tendencies prove that to ensure peace security and happiness, the rifle and pistol are equally indispensable … the very atmosphere of firearms anywhere restrains evil interference — they deserve a place of honor with all that's good."
    George Washington
    First President of the United States


    -----------------------------...

    "The supposed quietude of a good man allures the ruffian; while on the other hand arms, like laws, discourage and keep the invader and plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as property. The same balance would be preserved were all the world destitute of arms, for all would be alike; but since some will not, others dare not lay them aside … Horrid mischief would ensue were the law-abiding deprived of the use of them."
    Thomas Paine


    -----------------------------...

    "To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them."
    Richard Henry Lee
    American Statesman, 1788


    -----------------------------...

    "The great object is that every man be armed." and "Everyone who is able may have a gun."
    Patrick Henry
    American Patriot


    -----------------------------...

    "Are we at last brought to such humiliating and debasing degradation, that we cannot be trusted with arms for our defense? Where is the difference between having our arms in possession and under our direction and having them under the management of Congress? If our defense be the real object of having those arms, in whose hands can they be trusted with more propriety, or equal safety to us, as in our own hands?"
    Patrick Henry
    American Patriot


    -----------------------------...

    "Those who hammer their guns into plowshares will plow for those who do not."
    Thomas Jefferson
    Third President of the United States


    -----------------------------...

    "The constitutions of most of our States assert that all power is inherent in the people; that … it is their right and duty to be at all times armed; … "
    Thomas Jefferson
    letter to Justice John Cartwright, June 5, 1824. ME 16:45.


    -----------------------------...

    "The best we can help for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed."
    Alexander Hamilton
    The Federalist Papers at 184-8


    -----------------------------...

    The Founding Fathers on Maintaining Freedom
    "The greatest danger to American freedom is a government that ignores the Constitution."
    Thomas Jefferson
    Third President of the United States


    -----------------------------...

    "There are men in all ages who mean to govern well, but they mean to govern. They promise to be good masters, but they mean to be masters. "
    Noah Webster
    American Lexicographer


    -----------------------------...

    "The people never give up their liberties but under some delusion."
    Edmund Burke
    British Statesman, 1784


    -----------------------------...

    "What country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance. Let them take arms."
    Thomas Jefferson
    to James Madison


    -----------------------------...

    "They that give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
    Ben Franklin
    American Statesman


    -----------------------------...

    Later Quotes on Gun Control
    "The ruling class doesn't care about public safety. Having made it very difficult for States and localities to police themselves, having left ordinary citizens with no choice but to protect themselves as best they can, they now try to take our guns away. In fact they blame us and our guns for crime. This is so wrong that it cannot be an honest mistake."
    Malcolm Wallop
    former U.S. Sen. (R-WY)


    -----------------------------...

    "An armed man is a citizen. A disarmed man is a subject."
    Anon.
    Seen on a bumper sticker


    -----------------------------...

    Pro Gun Control
    "Our main agenda is to have all guns banned. We must use whatever means possible. It doesn't matter if you have to distort the facts or even lie. Our task of creating a socialist America can only succeed when those who would resist us have been totally disarmed."
    Sara Brady
    Chairman, Handgun Control Inc, to Senator Howard Metzenbaum
    The National Educator, January 1994, Page 3.


    -----------------------------...

    "If you wish the sympathy of the broad masses, you must tell them the crudest and most stupid things."

    "This year will go down in history. For the first time, a civilized nation has full gun registration. Our streets will be safer, our police more efficient, and the world will follow our lead into the future!"
    Adolph Hitler
    Chancellor, Germany, 1933


    -----------------------------...

    Acknowledgements
    I did not personally do any research from original documents, but I would like to thank the following sources.
    "Trader Bob" of Thunder Ridge Muzzleloading who had a selection in various places throughout the catalog.
    "Colonel Dan" in the Cowboy Chronicle, who always has interesting commentary as well.
    Marvin H. Meuser, Jr. in the "The Right Voice" has a selection of quotes supplemental to his essays on gun control.
    "Never do your foe a minor injury." -- Machiavelli
    (more)
  • mich52 Andrew 2013/02/11 22:46:39
  • ★Calliope★ 2013/02/03 00:46:46
    Yes, I Understand the Second Amendment and You Are Spot On Accurate!
    ★Calliope★
    +1
    You've grasped the meaning of the 2nd Amendment quite handily and expressed it very, very clearly. Well done and I concur.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 ... 37 Next » Last »

See Votes by State

The map above displays the winning answer by region.

News & Politics

2014/10/24 17:12:38

Hot Questions on SodaHead
More Hot Questions

More Community More Originals