Users Online Now:
2,060
(
Who's On?
)
Visitors Today:
1,412,474
Pageviews Today:
1,937,033
Threads Today:
481
Posts Today:
8,373
03:16 PM
Directory
Adv. Search
Topics
Forum
Back to Forum
Back to Thread
REPLY TO THREAD
Subject
The right to bear arms (2nd Amend) is specifically intended for DEFENSE AGAINST MODERN ARMY
User Name
Font color:
Default
Dark Red
Red
Orange
Brown
Yellow
Green
Olive
Cyan
Blue
Dark Blue
Indigo
Violet
Black
Font:
Default
Verdana
Tahoma
Ms Sans Serif
In accordance with industry accepted best practices we ask that users limit their copy / paste of copyrighted material to the relevant portions of the article you wish to discuss and no more than 50% of the source material, provide a link back to the original article and provide your original comments / criticism in your post with the article.
[quote:Anonymous Coward 2220160:MV8yMDg1NjU2XzM1MTI1NzI0X0VBMUIyNTky] Most Americans do not realize that the 2nd amendment right to bear arms did not apply to the states until 2010 and prior to that, the federal government (i.e. the Supreme Court) did not recognize the right to bear arms as a personal, individual right for their personal protection (Heller v. District of Columbia and McDonald v. City of Chicago). The debate over gun control is a contentious one- as an owner and user; it is difficult for me to discuss this with anyone who doesn’t own a gun because they don’t understand. However, the argument that the second amendment is the right to protect Americans from their own government is a misconception that arose during the mid-1960s. In truth, if we equate “good government” with an armed populace than places like Afghanistan and Syria would be considered “well-governed.” Voices from the far-right are trying to manipulate their voters’ fears and paranoia with the false notion that America is not a self-government republic, but almost a Mad-Max style confederation governed by Hobbes and Rand where each person may chose which laws to follow and which ones to disobey without any social contract binding us together. The result of this dystopia would be an ungovernable state of nature, much like the “governments” of Syria and Afghanistan. A right of self-defense, like the other enumerated rights in the Constitution, is subject to REASONABLE regulation to produce a system of laws to balance our heritage of gun ownership, and allow reasonable regulations to protect us from an anarchist-type government. Should we get rid of all assault rifles? No- they are already in the stream of commerce and removing them will do little if any good (once something enters the stream of commerce it is almost impossible to get our). Should we require gun shows to do background checks? Maybe- none of us have the answer but our fear of government and misconception of the 2nd amendment will only add fuel to the left’s fire by labeling owners as gun toting rednecks and hillbillies (not that there is anything wrong with that). BTW- that Jefferson quote is false- he never said that, "When governments fear the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny. The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government." That was John Basil Barnhill. Jefferson, much like Washington, would not agree that the 2nd amendment was created for people to protect themselves against the government. In fact, Washington was fearful and disgusted by the Shay rebellion and it contributed to his decision to come out of retirement and help frame a new national charter to prevent such outbreaks. Also, look into Art. I Sec. 8 and Congress's power to arm militias and call them to suppress uprisings. This is the first time militias are mentioned in the Constitution and it is interesting to look at the 2nd Amendment as a continuation of this power of Congress. [/quote]
Original Message
Here is the language of the Second Amdendment to the U.S. Constitution:
"
Amendment II
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
."
Note the language that this militia is "necessary to the security of a free state". This means that this militia is ABLE TO DEFEND AGAINST FOREIGN AND DOMESTIC ENEMIES IN WARFARE...ie,
be able to defend against a modern army of the day
.
The original meaning of the language "well regulated" here basically means "properly trained and equipped." Also, the original meaning of the term "militia" is basically "every able bodied male who could serve in the army."
Thus, putting this Amendment into "modern" language, it is saying:
"A properly equipped and trained population of able-bodied men, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
Pictures (click to insert)
General
Politics
Bananas
People
Potentially Offensive
Emotions
Big Round Smilies
Aliens and Space
Friendship & Love
Textual
Doom
Misc Small Smilies
Religion
Love
Random
View All Categories
|
Next Page >>