SECOND AMMENDMENT EXPLAINED;

Those who get it, get it.

Those who don't, never will.

don't forget; the muzzle -loading muskets used by the ARMY, was the same exact thing the average joes had to protect their homes.

in fact, there were not enough "army" guns to distribute, so they wanted the men to bring their oun gun from home, if they had one.

the muskets fired a ball that was about 80 % of a POUND.

they were the 'terror weapons' of their day.

Not to quibble with what is otherwise a great post. But my understanding of the term well regulated in the context and language of the time meant that the firearm be in good working order and that everything necessary to use that firearm was available and ready.


Fully automatic weapons were freely available to Americans until 1934. They still are today with a license.

thanx for the info !!

we can't have tanks or nukes or bio weapons, either.

for dummies;

part 3; the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

'keep' means they do not take them away, you can keep them.
'bear' means carry.
'shall not be infringed' means 'keep'

After all, you never know when you will need to join up with your neighbors and fight a tyrannical government! Could be next week!

Well regulated militia = orderly and supervised.

It has nothing to do with regulating which arms are allowed.

I believe the cap should be fully auto AK-47 because that fire power is enough to thwart the enemy.

NO. It isn't.

Do you know who the "enemy" is?

Actually, the clause "A Well Regulated Militia" means Trained & Disciplined. Minutemen, by nature and definition, we're already expected to Drill, Keep Weapons, Powder, Ball & Everything needed to support those Weapons in a grab & go condition at all times.

The Militia Act of 1792 & subsequent Amendments gave the President the power to Federalize the Militia in time of crisis.

By the early 1900's America was well on its way to becoming a global power and needed a Reserve Force to back up the Regular Army. The Dick Act of 1903 created the Organized Militia which became known as the National Guard. The original Militia became known as the Unorganized Militia and is still found in US Code Title 10 Section 311.

Also, it might surprise some people here who aren't aware but citizens of the United States DO OWN Tanks, Armored Vehicles, Artillery Pieces, Military Aircraft and Mortars by the Thousands. They are in the hands of private collectors.

[link to www.youtube.com]

Nails it at the end.

i'm hoping this year is the year people realize why that amendment was so important in the first place. the people who founded this country knew it would get back to this point again...

and

it will be changed

the biggest army in the world is the American hunter. Nobody fucks with the Americans because of this one fact.

and all the rest will follow

Thread: What the SECCOND AMMENDMENT MEANS for all you "GUN CONTROL" tards.


Back when the second ammendment was written..it mentioned MUSKETS..WHY?

Cause MUSKETS were what the GOVT of the time ALSO had.

Now we have semi and fully auto guns.

SO does the govt.

WHAT do you think will happen when the govt has these and YOU DONT.

That would amount to what happenned to the natives who only had bows and arrows against the govt who had muskets.

The second ammendement was worded that way for a reason.

the poeple SHOULD ALWAYS HAVE the SAME guns as the govt..or they are TOAST...just ask any native.

Exactly!! It has nothing to do with limiting what we can possess.

One of those "balls" could take a leg or an arm off
lickety split. Or chop you in half.

They weren't as accurate as today's weapons,
but you don't want to get hit by a musket ball
in ANY century.

We have stockpiled millions of weapons and billions of rounds of ammunition over the last four years. We already have solid plans in place to disrupt federal government operations, the courts and wipe out any collaborating alphabet police.We must remember history, only three percent of American participated in the Revolutionary War. Determined Conservative Americans don’t have to accept government Tyranny. We just have to get serious and make Tyranny personally very expensive for rogue government politicians and their appointed bureaucrats.

I would like to offer an alternative to your definition of "well regulated".

I have been told by scholars that "well regulated" at that time meant "well TRAINED" as in "trained in the use of their firearms".

The Second Amendment illuminates the right of citizens to possess arms. It does not limit in any way the number or type of weapons a citizen may possess. Since the intent is to bring 'force of arms' against Government Tyranny it is self evident that any arm available to the Government is also the right of the citizen. We have already allowed violations of the Second Amendment to stand as accommodation to those who bear us ill intent. Enough...

an argument by a friend. might interest you

"Here is hard data. The United States has 88.8 guns for every 100 people in the country, the homicide rate by firearm is 2.97 per 100,000 population. The theory is that if we reduce US gun ownership of firearms there will be fewer murders by firearms—whether their will be more murders by other methods is generally ignored.

So, how does gun ownership correlate with murder by fire arms? Anguilla has "no" firearms but their homicide rate by firearms is 7.15. Argentina is at 3.02 with only 10.2 firearms per 100. The Bahamas have a only 5.3 guns per 100,000 with 15.37 firearm deaths per 100,000 population. I will mention Bangladesh because their gun ownership is 1/2 per 100 people yet their death by firearms are still 1.12 per 100,000. In Barbados only 7.8 people out of 100 own firearms, but the rate was 2.99. In Belize there is only 1 firearm for every ten people, yet the homicide rate by firearm is 21.82. In Brazil only 8 weapons per 100 people exist, yet the firearm homicide rate is 18.1. Canada, by the way, has a relatively high fire ownership rate (30.8) in international terms, yet has a low death by firearm rate (0.51). Chile has 10.7 weapons per 100 people yet a homicide by firearm rate of 2.16 per 100000. Colombia has only 5.9 weapons per 100 people yet the firearm homicide rate is 27.09. The Democratic Republic of the Congo has gun ownership rate that is a tiny 1.4 weapons per 100 people, yet the firearm homicide rate is 1.56. The first number is a tiny fraction of the US number yet the homicide rate by firearm is a difference of about 1 person per 100000 people. Costa Rica has a firearm homicide rate of 4.59, well above the US, but a gun ownership rate of 9.9 per 100, well below the US. Croatia and Cyprus have relatively high gun ownership rates (21.7 and 36.4 respectively) but relatively low firearm homicide rates: 0.39 and 0.46. Ecuador has an ownership rate of just 1.3 per 100, but the firearm homicide rate is more than four times higher than the United States; 12.73.In El Salvador the ownership rate is just 5.8, but the firearm homicide rate is 39.9. Finland and France both have relatively high gun ownership rates—45.3 and 31.2—by international standards and very low firearm homicide rates: 0.45 and 0.06. Ditto for Germany with 30.3 firearms per 100, and firearm homicide rates of 0.19 per 100,000.The same is true for Greece with 22.5 weapons per 100, but 0.26 per 100,000 in firearm homicides.

Guatamala, on the other hand has a high homicide rate of 34.81 per 100,000 but a relatively low firearm ownership rate; just 13.1 per 100. Guyana is in the same boat with firearm ownership of just 14.6 per 100, but firearm homicides at 11.46 per 100,000. Hondurs may be the worst in disparity with 68.42 deaths by firearms per 100,000 people, but with only 6.2 firearms per 100 people.Iceland, where about 1/3rd of all people have a firearm (30.3) has a firearm homicide rate of 0. Jamaica has 8.1 weapons per 100 people, but a homicide rate of 39.4. New Zealand has a firearm ownership rate of 22.6 per 100, but the homicide rate is only 0.16. In contrast, Nicaragua has only 7.7 weapons per 100, yet the firearm homicide rate is 5.92. In Norway 31.3 weapons are in private hands per 100 people, yet the homicide rate by firearms is just 0.05 per 100,000. Panama has a firearm ownership rate well below the US, 21.7%, but a homicide rate well above the US; 16.18. In Serbia 37.8 of people have a firearm, but the homicide rate is 0.46.In Sierre Leone almost no one owns a firearm, 0.6%, yet the firearm homicide rate is similar to that in the US, 2.28. South Africa has only 12.7 guns per 100 people but 17.03 per 100,000 is the firearm homicide rate.

Sweden and Switzerland have relatively high gun ownership rates; 31.6 and 45.7. They also have relatively low firearm homicide rates; 0.41 and 0.77. Trinidad, with just 1.5 guns per 100, should be paradise but it has 27.31 firearm homicides per 100,000.In Venezuela, that socialist paradise, guns are restricted to 10.7 per 100 people, but the firearm homicide rate is 28.97. And Zimbabwe, with a lower ownership rate of just 4.4 per 100 has a higher firearm homicide rate of 4.78.

Now, these numbers come from the Guardian who got them from the UN. The survey is skewed against guns because it only looks at homicides by firearm instead of the total homicides from all causes. What we see is that some nations have very low rates of gun ownership yet have high rates of murder by firearm and other countries have relatively high rates of gun ownership yet very low rates of firearm related homicides. These numbers are so all over the place I don't think there is a statistical correlation. What this tells us is that the homicide rate by firearms is far more complex than simply whether or not people own guns."

Keep defending the Constitution as long as you want. Are you still going to defend the Constitution when it's changed? Did you know Mexico had a Constitution that was similar to the US? Did you know Mexico and guns have had a long history with the their Constitution until the 1960's when the government freaked out and banned them completely by changing the Constitution? Do you think the same will not happen here? What will you do then? Do you honestly think they aren't going to change the Constitution when they have already in the past?

People need to drop the Constitution, it's a terrible document that allows government to control others. Jefferson warned us about this. Start defending LIBERTY instead. These crazies in government are willing to change the Constitution to bring us something worse than Communist hell China and you're all being led into it.

Thats what she said...

[link to pjmedia.com]

an argument by a friend. might interest you

"Here is hard data. The United States has 88.8 guns for every 100 people in the country, the homicide rate by firearm is 2.97 per 100,000 population. The theory is that if we reduce US gun ownership of firearms there will be fewer murders by firearms—whether their will be more murders by other methods is generally ignored.

So, how does gun ownership correlate with murder by fire arms? Anguilla has "no" firearms but their homicide rate by firearms is 7.15. Argentina is at 3.02 with only 10.2 firearms per 100. The Bahamas have a only 5.3 guns per 100,000 with 15.37 firearm deaths per 100,000 population. I will mention Bangladesh because their gun ownership is 1/2 per 100 people yet their death by firearms are still 1.12 per 100,000. In Barbados only 7.8 people out of 100 own firearms, but the rate was 2.99. In Belize there is only 1 firearm for every ten people, yet the homicide rate by firearm is 21.82. In Brazil only 8 weapons per 100 people exist, yet the firearm homicide rate is 18.1. Canada, by the way, has a relatively high fire ownership rate (30.8) in international terms, yet has a low death by firearm rate (0.51). Chile has 10.7 weapons per 100 people yet a homicide by firearm rate of 2.16 per 100000. Colombia has only 5.9 weapons per 100 people yet the firearm homicide rate is 27.09. The Democratic Republic of the Congo has gun ownership rate that is a tiny 1.4 weapons per 100 people, yet the firearm homicide rate is 1.56. The first number is a tiny fraction of the US number yet the homicide rate by firearm is a difference of about 1 person per 100000 people. Costa Rica has a firearm homicide rate of 4.59, well above the US, but a gun ownership rate of 9.9 per 100, well below the US. Croatia and Cyprus have relatively high gun ownership rates (21.7 and 36.4 respectively) but relatively low firearm homicide rates: 0.39 and 0.46. Ecuador has an ownership rate of just 1.3 per 100, but the firearm homicide rate is more than four times higher than the United States; 12.73.In El Salvador the ownership rate is just 5.8, but the firearm homicide rate is 39.9. Finland and France both have relatively high gun ownership rates—45.3 and 31.2—by international standards and very low firearm homicide rates: 0.45 and 0.06. Ditto for Germany with 30.3 firearms per 100, and firearm homicide rates of 0.19 per 100,000.The same is true for Greece with 22.5 weapons per 100, but 0.26 per 100,000 in firearm homicides.

Guatamala, on the other hand has a high homicide rate of 34.81 per 100,000 but a relatively low firearm ownership rate; just 13.1 per 100. Guyana is in the same boat with firearm ownership of just 14.6 per 100, but firearm homicides at 11.46 per 100,000. Hondurs may be the worst in disparity with 68.42 deaths by firearms per 100,000 people, but with only 6.2 firearms per 100 people.Iceland, where about 1/3rd of all people have a firearm (30.3) has a firearm homicide rate of 0. Jamaica has 8.1 weapons per 100 people, but a homicide rate of 39.4. New Zealand has a firearm ownership rate of 22.6 per 100, but the homicide rate is only 0.16. In contrast, Nicaragua has only 7.7 weapons per 100, yet the firearm homicide rate is 5.92. In Norway 31.3 weapons are in private hands per 100 people, yet the homicide rate by firearms is just 0.05 per 100,000. Panama has a firearm ownership rate well below the US, 21.7%, but a homicide rate well above the US; 16.18. In Serbia 37.8 of people have a firearm, but the homicide rate is 0.46.In Sierre Leone almost no one owns a firearm, 0.6%, yet the firearm homicide rate is similar to that in the US, 2.28. South Africa has only 12.7 guns per 100 people but 17.03 per 100,000 is the firearm homicide rate.

Sweden and Switzerland have relatively high gun ownership rates; 31.6 and 45.7. They also have relatively low firearm homicide rates; 0.41 and 0.77. Trinidad, with just 1.5 guns per 100, should be paradise but it has 27.31 firearm homicides per 100,000.In Venezuela, that socialist paradise, guns are restricted to 10.7 per 100 people, but the firearm homicide rate is 28.97. And Zimbabwe, with a lower ownership rate of just 4.4 per 100 has a higher firearm homicide rate of 4.78.

Now, these numbers come from the Guardian who got them from the UN. The survey is skewed against guns because it only looks at homicides by firearm instead of the total homicides from all causes. What we see is that some nations have very low rates of gun ownership yet have high rates of murder by firearm and other countries have relatively high rates of gun ownership yet very low rates of firearm related homicides. These numbers are so all over the place I don't think there is a statistical correlation. What this tells us is that the homicide rate by firearms is far more complex than simply whether or not people own guns."

You're absolutely right. People don't read it correctly.

It doesn't say: "THE RIGHT OF THE MILITIA TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS"

IT SAYS P E O P L E.

Why, logically, would you need to state a MILITIA can "keep and bear arms"? A militia INHERENTLY will "bear arms". "The People", on the other hand, do not - hence the need to specifically note that "The People" can "bear" them.


Oh - and they don't elaborate on what kind of "arms" people can have. You want to know why? Because our forefathers were SMART ENOUGH and had the FORESIGHT to understand "arms" change and evolve - that's why they didn't say muskets and cannons!!!! Why is this SO HARD to understand?

Last Edited by Project_Deimos on 12/17/2012 10:48 PM