The Founders on the 2nd Amendment and the Right to Bear Arms

Gun control nuts (liberals) simply do not understand that the 2A is about enabling American citizens to kill tyrants. The hope was with that ever present threat a centralized Government would keep itself in check.

a reply to: hounddoghowlie

You make a reasonable point but it's still within the context of militia service and has nothing to do with what the OP is promoting about "equal parity" with the US military. States were ultimately responsible for organizing, training, equipping and arming the militia beyond the aforementioned requirements (artillery for example). Nothing about the Militia Act of 1792 should lead one to believe that it was intended as a justification for yahoos carrying rifles into Chipotle to get cool pictures for Facebook.

The same Act also conscripted every white male between 18 and 45 into the militia, under federal law, ultimately to serve at the President's behest to among other things, squash insurrection. Consider that one of the major events preceding the act was Shays' Rebellion and that Washington called forth the militia during the Whiskey Rebellion in 1794. Congress wanted able bodied white men of fighting age to possess small arms to fight for the government.

And of course, as you pointed out the Militia Act of 1792 was superseded by the Militia Act of 1903 with the primary effect of federalizing the National Guard. As I said, I have no problem with gun ownership, but let's not misconstrue militias as being intended as protection against the US military. There is no arms race between civilians and the military.

The progressives in both parties in this country routinely ignore the written law and simply do what they want and its the reason why this country in in dire straits right now. These progressives have no legal basis for their actions and simply cry pragmatism like it a magic word like alakazam or abracadabra. To be really frank about this, in the United States progressives need accept the fact that the 2nd Amendment exists and that it is constitutional law and the constitution is the supreme law of the land. The constitution is greater than the law that congress makes and greater than the executive orders of the president, and its is greater than the judgments of any court. Each of these bodies have attempted from time to time to water down the constitution, to treat it more as guideline than a principle. and while progressives may make some "progress" in harming our constitutional rights, time and the written word are on our side and until such time as the constitution is actually amended, our rights never change. The only question is whether some branch of government is going to abide by the constitution as written principle, or they chose to violate the bill of rights and wrongfully decide not to enforce it.

Progressives are like a cancer in this country. For over a decade now the federal government has routinely shown that it will not abide by the bill of rights and routinely, the federal courts appointed by the federal government have chosen not to force the federal government to respect the bill of rights. This progressivism has also infected the supreme court as it has whittled down the 2nd amendment in a pragmatic fashion while willfully ignoring the words "shall not be infringed." Can it not get any more plain textually, "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED." That means no amount of pragmatic prophesying can justify an infringement on the second amendment and that means that every gun law including the 1934 National Firearms Act is unconstitutional. One only has to look at who was president in 1934 (FDR) to see that it was progressive attack on the constitution.

That progressive attack on the constitution continues to this day. In fact, Supreme court Stevens that came out with an equally ridiculous, "I'd add five words to the 2nd amendment to fix it." But his 5 words are meant to change the meaning to the complete opposite of what its supposed to be. Just more progressive garbage.

Here, I'll take a crack at adding my own 5 words to better explain the 2nd amendment.

BECAUSE "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state" IT IS NECESSARY THAT "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

the term well regulated militia does not define the right, it is the reason the right exists. The founding fathers fought a guerrilla war for independence. They knew that a gun behind ever blade of grass would guarantee the security of the country for all time. They chose against a centralized armory that could be attack or compromised and instead wanted citizens to hold their arms and to be ready to defend the country.

The founding fathers reason for the 2nd amendment as it exists is simple and effective. So as far as the non sequitur progressive reasoning behind, "well they had muskets so the second amendment only covers muskets." Ask yourself if you would feel prepared if you we called upon or rather drafted to serve in a militia to defend your country and all you had was a musket while you were facing a invading army equipped with the latest weapons. There really should not be any debate over this, it is crystal constitutionally clear. And the United States is not alone, other countries have the same idea regarding homeland defense, for example Switzerland. en.wikipedia.org...

I would say that every citizen in the united states has the right to possess any weapon that a modern military can possess whether it automatic weapons, tanks, jet fighters and every other implement of modern warfare.

As for the progressive scare tactics over violence run amok, I will say this, the problem in this country is that we have crazy people that do (surprise surprise /sarcasm) crazy unpredictable things and we have an eqaully crazy bunch of bunch of progressives with crazy ideas that they think are pragmatic but that in fact are only solutions for a world that does not exist except in the utopia filled thoughts of champagne socialists. We need less of this progressive garbage and more real world solutions routed in what the law actually allows. When a school shooting occurs, we need to look to the second amendment for the solutions. If a school shooting occurs we should ask, What solution can be found in the constitution? hmmmm banning guns? uhh No. Limiting magazine size? uhh No. Arming teachers? bing bing bing yes we have a winner. Its ridiculous to leave unprotected those that are most vulnerable. Unless of course you're a champagne socialist wanting to create a few martrys for your "cause." Then of course it makes perfect sense... in a progressive's mind. But then again that is where the real problem starts.

Obama: "Weapons of war have no place on our streets".

Why do small town cops need armored bomb proof trucks.

Its not like we have IEDs being used on city streets.
or criminals with RPGs,.

To me this looks like something needed to confiscate guns from the public and move people to HLS/fema camps.

whats next cops with M1 Abrams tanks.
www.abovetopsecret.com...

originally posted by: kruphix
a reply to: TinkerHaus



The 2nd amendment gives you no right to fight against the United States Government...if you do that, by definition of the Constitution, you are a traitor.

I would argue that, at the point an armed revolution would be necessary, the federal government would not be following the Constitution anymore, therefore releasing any obligation of its citizenry to respect, follow, or trust its leadership. Once the United States government is no longer the government of the United States, it is not a treasonous act to take it back with force.

You pretend that the age of the document is inandofitself an idicator that it should be, at least, reviewed for possible revision. I would argue that our current society and leadership should be reviewed for possible replacement in order to put in place people who actually believe in why and how this country was founded.

An increasing temporal distance from the signing of the Constitution does not decay the spirit of the founding of our nation, nor does it negate the veracity of the document and its amendments. If you think that, just because we are so far removed from the Revolutionary War, the 2nd Amendment shouldn't apply to life anymore, I would just point you in historical direction of all dictatorships and how they have ruled their country--then I would ask you to point to ONE that retained the freedom and uninfringed right to keep and bear arms. This correlation may not be because of causation, but you certainly can't ignore the fact that a citizenry who is more capable of self defense is also more capable of fighting off tyranny.

originally posted by: Sunwolf
But,but,but you really think the average redneck should have world killing anti-matter weapons?I suppose Joe sixpack should have photon torpedoes?Think of the children!!!!

Average rednecks aren't responsible for most violent crime. They are also not responsible for most corporate fraud. Put the blame where it belongs. You are using an untrue stereotype of rednecks. Most are very clever, respectful people.

That's what anti-Americans want; A disarmed public, because they think it would make their agenda easier. lol
Why are so many foreigners so concerned over my right to own guns? Why are liberals so quick to hand over their rights? Why do we even care about what a microscopic minority thinks about one of our amendments? The amendment will not change and people will always be able to own guns, even assault weapons. It's American. Maybe Europe would be better for people who don't want the rights that so many have fought and died for here in America?

Double post....

a reply to: Indigo5

A line has been drawn for years, the issue is certain types of people continually try to redefine certain guns to class them as a military weapons....which they are not even close to being. A Porsche body with a VW engine is not a Porsche. So "regulation" as some see it is nothing more than a dishonest attempt to disarm civilians of their right to defend themselves against people who do not follow those very regulations they claim will keep us safe.

You can own lots of things with a FFL all classIII weapons in fact. Which requires a ATF/FBI background check, registration of each weapon(a tax stamp) and then roughly $18k for an AR-15......but ya you can own one....

a reply to: Indigo5

The Commander-in-Chief a Civilian Officer

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

But.............what about common sense gun control??

And what about the fact that no one needs more then 5 bullets to kill a deer

a reply to: kruphix

Because they crafted and enacted the laws, not your liberal science Professor of Woman's Struggles.

originally posted by: macman
...common sense gun control??

Thomas Jefferson would think that was an oxymoron.

originally posted by: Fylgje

originally posted by: Sunwolf
But,but,but you really think the average redneck should have world killing anti-matter weapons?I suppose Joe sixpack should have photon torpedoes?Think of the children!!!!

Average rednecks aren't responsible for most violent crime. They are also not responsible for most corporate fraud. Put the blame where it belongs. You are using an untrue stereotype of rednecks. Most are very clever, respectful people.

That's what anti-Americans want; A disarmed public, because they think it would make their agenda easier. lol
Why are so many foreigners so concerned over my right to own guns? Why are liberals so quick to hand over their rights? Why do we even care about what a microscopic minority thinks about one of our amendments? The amendment will not change and people will always be able to own guns, even assault weapons. It's American. Maybe Europe would be better for people who don't want the rights that so many have fought and died for here in America?

Uhh,it was satire/sarcasm......parodying the lefts arguments.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: macman
...common sense gun control??

Thomas Jefferson would think that was an oxymoron.

"All natural rights may be abridged or modified in their exercise by law." --Thomas Jefferson: Official Opinion, 1790.

"No freeman shall be debarred the use of arms within his own lands or tenements." --Thomas Jefferson: Draft Va. Constitution with (his note) added, 1776.

All rights are subject to regulation and law.

Thus we have the right to free speech and yet we can not shout "fire" in a crowded theater for own amusement.

We have the right of freedom of assembly, but we can not arbitrarily gather friends to block roadways.

I am a supporter of the 2nd Amendment and can at the same time say without reservation that those who demand no oversight or regulation what-so-ever of gun ownership damage the credibility of the rational gun owners.

And Thomas Jefferson would agree.

originally posted by: Indigo5


Thus we have the right to free speech and yet we can not shout "fire" in a crowded theater for own amusement.

This is the biggest falsehood every stated.

Yes, yes you can yell this. There is no law stating that you can't.

originally posted by: Indigo5
Thus we have the right to free speech and yet we can not shout "fire" in a crowded theater for own amusement.

Shouting fire is not a limitation on free speech nor is it even a prohibited or regulated act. It is the ensuing panic that gets you into trouble. If there was no panic following your shouting of fire you wouldnt be in any trouble whatsoever.

We have the right of freedom of assembly, but we can not arbitrarily gather friends to block roadways.

Not one and the same. Blocking free passage is the problem. Has nothing to do with assembly.

I am a supporter of the 2nd Amendment and can at the same time say without reservation that those who demand no oversight or regulation what-so-ever of gun ownership damage the credibility of the rational gun owners.

You may notice that your examples are actions which cause direct harm to people such as inciting a panic and blocking free passage. They have nothing to do with the first amendment as the first amendment does not enshrine a right to terrorize or restrain.

What about my having a scary black gun with a thousand-round magazine and a silencer on it causes direct harm to you or others?

Shouting fire in a crowded theatre ?


Well that is what the gun control crowd is doing.

'FIRE' (gun violence)

Watch the masses scramble for 'safety'.

originally posted by: Indigo5

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: macman
...common sense gun control??

Thomas Jefferson would think that was an oxymoron.

"All natural rights may be abridged or modified in their exercise by law." --Thomas Jefferson: Official Opinion, 1790.

"No freeman shall be debarred the use of arms within his own lands or tenements." --Thomas Jefferson: Draft Va. Constitution with (his note) added, 1776.

All rights are subject to regulation and law.

Thus we have the right to free speech and yet we can not shout "fire" in a crowded theater for own amusement.

We have the right of freedom of assembly, but we can not arbitrarily gather friends to block roadways.

I am a supporter of the 2nd Amendment and can at the same time say without reservation that those who demand no oversight or regulation what-so-ever of gun ownership damage the credibility of the rational gun owners.

And Thomas Jefferson would agree.

Well, actually no you're wrong and I believe Jefferson would disagree with you too.

Natural rights are the basis for constitutional rights, Natural rights are Jefferson's justification for constitutionalizing certain rights, to put them beyond the control of government, that's why we have the Bill of Rights. Other "natural rights" not being constitutionally protected can be abridged from by the state. Constitutionalized rights cannot be abridged by ordinary law.

Now let's look to see if the federal government has any authority to regulate firearms. Look at the 10th Amendment it says "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

The powers that fall to the people under the 10th amendment are capable of natural rights that can be infringed upon by law or regulation by the individual states. But unless the federal government has an expressed grant of authority under the constitution, then it is unable to act.

So take for instance the 1934 National Firearms Act, please show me in the constitution where it is written that the constitution grants to the federal government the express power to regulate firearms. I'll save you the trouble, its not there. But I can find the words "shall not be infringed" in the 2nd amendment.

Like I said, I think Jefferson would disagree with you.

Yeah someone is wrong about Jefferson:

To wit:

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." - Thomas Jefferson

I prefer dangerous freedom over peaceful slavery." - Thomas Jefferson

"The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes.... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man." - Thomas Jefferson (quoting 18th century criminologist Cesare Beccaria)

"A strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species of exercises, I advise the gun. While this gives moderate exercise to the body, it gives boldness, enterprise and independence to the mind. Games played with the ball, and others of that nature, are too violent for the body and stamp no character on the mind. Let your gun therefore be your constant companion of your walks." - Thomas Jefferson

www.buckeyefirearms.org...

How far have we fallen since Jefferson.