Godlike Productions - Conspiracy Forum
Users Online Now: 2,017 (Who's On?)Visitors Today: 1,038,047
Pageviews Today: 1,305,622Threads Today: 237Posts Today: 4,472
08:58 AM


Rate this Thread

Absolute BS Crap Reasonable Nice Amazing
 

The right to bear arms (2nd Amend) is specifically intended for DEFENSE AGAINST MODERN ARMY

 
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 27794780
United States
12/18/2012 05:32 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: The right to bear arms (2nd Amend) is specifically intended for DEFENSE AGAINST MODERN ARMY
Since you can be drafted up to around the age of 60 years of age, make some sense!
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 11685337
United States
12/18/2012 05:33 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: The right to bear arms (2nd Amend) is specifically intended for DEFENSE AGAINST MODERN ARMY
WTB:

Nuclear weapons so I can at the very least nuke the capital when the politicians become dicks.


That should make sense according to your reasoning right?
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 22089462


Fuck you, slave trader.
s. d. butler

User ID: 974819
United States
12/18/2012 05:36 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: The right to bear arms (2nd Amend) is specifically intended for DEFENSE AGAINST MODERN ARMY
And what modern army do you think semi-automatic rifles and handguns will be much use against?
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 25007705


don't know anything about 4th and 5th gen warfare, do you?
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 27972246
United States
12/18/2012 05:37 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: The right to bear arms (2nd Amend) is specifically intended for DEFENSE AGAINST MODERN ARMY
If the country passes a law banning military type weapons then it is your duty as law abiding citizens to follow that law. If not, guess what, your a f'ing criminal.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 18625087


In the case of the Citizens of the USA, only and only IF the U.S. Constitution's 2nd Amendment were first repealed or amended and passed by Congress, signed by the President and then Ratified by either the State Legislatures or the People, in a nation wide referendum. Only then would it be a legal law curtailing the Congressional ban on military type weapons in individual citizens hands and possesions, even at home.

The power to change the Law of the Land is full within the Venue of the U.S. Constitution itself and its LAWs about how to amend the self same Constitution, even without the need for calling in a full blown Constitution Convention of all the States.

This is the process that so many revolutionaries seeking to destroy the USA, its people, and its governments, are working overtime to get people to just ignore.
IssueX

User ID: 14348632
United States
12/18/2012 05:40 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: The right to bear arms (2nd Amend) is specifically intended for DEFENSE AGAINST MODERN ARMY
If the country passes a law banning military type weapons then it is your duty as law abiding citizens to follow that law. If not, guess what, your a f'ing criminal.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 18625087


In the case of the Citizens of the USA, only and only IF the U.S. Constitution's 2nd Amendment were first repealed or amended and passed by Congress, signed by the President and then Ratified by either the State Legislatures or the People, in a nation wide referendum. Only then would it be a legal law curtailing the Congressional ban on military type weapons in individual citizens hands and possesions, even at home.

The power to change the Law of the Land is full within the Venue of the U.S. Constitution itself and its LAWs about how to amend the self same Constitution, even without the need for calling in a full blown Constitution Convention of all the States.

This is the process that so many revolutionaries seeking to destroy the USA, its people, and its governments, are working overtime to get people to just ignore.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 27972246


at the moment, the 2nd ammendment would be very difficult to overturn (not to say it would not be attempted)

they will chip away at the edges of it first

if it actually came to an attempt to convene a constitutional convention to alter the constitution, at that point serious seismic faults in the US electorate would be triggered

jmho....
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 32639
Canada
12/18/2012 05:41 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: The right to bear arms (2nd Amend) is specifically intended for DEFENSE AGAINST MODERN ARMY
Manu-Koelbren

User ID: 29289144
Spain
12/18/2012 05:42 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: The right to bear arms (2nd Amend) is specifically intended for DEFENSE AGAINST MODERN ARMY
The patriotic spirit is strong on this one goofy thum
"White privilege" is the liberal religion's version of Original Sin: you are born guilty, and you carry that burden of guilt all your life, and the only way to escape eternal damnation is for white people confess their sin, to bow, kneel and believe the dogma of the Church of Liberalism, genuflect at its altars, honor its saints, fill the collection plate, and never, ever doubt.

-- Dixon Diaz
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 2220160
United States
12/18/2012 05:43 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: The right to bear arms (2nd Amend) is specifically intended for DEFENSE AGAINST MODERN ARMY
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.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 27972246
United States
12/18/2012 05:47 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: The right to bear arms (2nd Amend) is specifically intended for DEFENSE AGAINST MODERN ARMY
And what modern army do you think semi-automatic rifles and handguns will be much use against?
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 25007705


don't know anything about 4th and 5th gen warfare, do you?
 Quoting: s. d. butler


Reaper type drones, armed with LASER 'death ray' Guns.. can only be fought against by LASER weapons, as any projectile fired against them could well be destroyed in flight to the target.

Oh, and by the way, The People have has much right to fly and operate Drones as the US Government, and State governments, and county governments, and even city governments, and corporations have to be flying their drones.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 27972246
United States
12/18/2012 05:53 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: The right to bear arms (2nd Amend) is specifically intended for DEFENSE AGAINST MODERN ARMY
The OP is putting his own twist on the 2nd amendment. The same is done with the bible.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 18625087


How has he done that? By quoting the people that wrote it?
 Quoting: Evil Cretin


Did you read that persons post? He said "What it means is"
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 18625087


And the phrase, "What it means is... " is an interpretative indication. I.e., this is what I interpret this to mean. Others will have their own opinions of what they interpret it to mean, hence was have a Supreme Court. Those that uphold the U.S. Constitution will abide by the decisions of that U.S. Supreme Court and bide their time for a change in the Court's membership.

Just like Religious texts, there is much about interpretation and how each person interprets what they read.. hence there is a natural formation of division because peoples brains and minds are different... even in genetically identical twins and triplets.

Welcome to being Human.
IssueX

User ID: 14348632
United States
12/18/2012 05:58 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: The right to bear arms (2nd Amend) is specifically intended for DEFENSE AGAINST MODERN ARMY
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.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 2220160


interesting thoughtful post, I will research more of what you wrote

However I don't think many necessarily equte gun ownership in and of itself with good governance...that can only come from literacy, education and awareness.

However I believe it is viewed a necessary support to good governance, and one can point to various countries in the 20th century which have been entirely disarmed to show that lack of weapons does not equal good governance or safety either
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 27972246
United States
12/18/2012 06:04 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: The right to bear arms (2nd Amend) is specifically intended for DEFENSE AGAINST MODERN ARMY
If the country passes a law banning military type weapons then it is your duty as law abiding citizens to follow that law. If not, guess what, your a f'ing criminal.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 18625087


Remember, everything the Nazis did was LEGAL.

Think about that.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 1144869


Also remember that at the time the Wiemar Republic was a duly established Constitutional Democratic Republic.. which VOTED to overthrown by its own laws that standing constitutional democratic republic. It was all perfectly Constitutionally legal. As exactly the Roman Republic was transformed into an Empire with a 'god' Ceasar. The same sort of thing happened with Athens democratic republic... it was all LEGAL in the terms of its own Law of the Land.

Having a Constitutional Democratic Republic is no proof at all that said constitution will not in its organic body contain the seed or out right declarations of certain powers that will establish at least a temporary dictatorship.

Did the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics have an organic constitution in which the eligibility to vote was determined by its constitution along certain lines? I do not know, perhaps a Russian verse in the law of the USSR could answer that question.

The US definitely did originally... and in fact still does.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 27972246
United States
12/18/2012 06:17 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: The right to bear arms (2nd Amend) is specifically intended for DEFENSE AGAINST MODERN ARMY
If, by the way, you allow our guns to be taken away, you are the Fuckin' criminal. Time and Time again throughout history, once guns are taken from the people, their governments have ran them over.
 Quoting: 0311INFANTRYSIR


And just think how many semi-automatic rifles, and shotguns, and hand guns the Branch Davidians had in their compound outside of Waco in their possession and notice how effective they were to save the lives of even one of the human beings inside that compound?

Did not the U.S. Government run over them? Yes.

Did the Sheriff of that County? No.

Both the Sheriff and the Davidians knew they were in a complete worthless position.. they were biding time to just come out and surrender, but the U.S. Government got impatient... and used its overwhelming force against them.

Even if those people had exhausted all their ammon, and all other forms of weapons they had, they still would not have 'Won the day'.. they would have been overwhelmed before they were ready to come out.

Learn the lessons. That it is the People in mass, not the one or two armed goons, but thousands, or tens of thousands, or millions literally open carry, and yeilding loaded weapons of all sort.. is the only think that would make a tyrant think twice.

The first US Civil War was pretty much a collection of States against a collection of States, the next one will be nothing more than People against People.
s. d. butler

User ID: 974819
United States
12/18/2012 06:26 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: The right to bear arms (2nd Amend) is specifically intended for DEFENSE AGAINST MODERN ARMY
"The strongest reason for people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.” – Thomas Jefferson
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 20078449


I do not own any guns, but I fully support the 2nd ammendment

This fight against semi-automatic weapons will be a subtle one most people will not understand, because per the constitution, the civilian population must have the right to the same weapons as their government could use against them

If a swat team can invade my town and use AK 15s against us, per the founding fathers we should have the right to be able to fight back fairly and not with hunting rifles

If one lives in a country where the police are armed only with hand guns or tasers, that would be a different story but we know that isn't the case in the USA

The issue is that most people assume the government is good and will never be repressive or murderous against them

the founding fathers knew better. They had seen "benign monarchies" turn into psychopathic dictatorships, reasonable governments turn into the enemy over issues such as religion

Of course, we wish we lived in a more evolved world where the critical mass of humanity didn't resort to killing to resolve issues, but until we are there people need to have the right to defend themselves
 Quoting: IssueX


You have a clear understanding of the real issue and what is at stake, the gravity of which can't be understated. Not just now for us but future generations. Thanks
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 27972246
United States
12/18/2012 06:31 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: The right to bear arms (2nd Amend) is specifically intended for DEFENSE AGAINST MODERN ARMY
And what modern army do you think semi-automatic rifles and handguns will be much use against?
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 25007705


Modern Armies used mostly crew served weapons. Kill the crew and you can make it your weapon. So they are very useful in my opinion.

This is one of the reasons for the push for more drones.
 Quoting: CharlieMurphy


Personal Attack Drones are the individuals "Stand off" weapons.
s. d. butler

User ID: 974819
United States
12/18/2012 06:56 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: The right to bear arms (2nd Amend) is specifically intended for DEFENSE AGAINST MODERN ARMY
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.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 2220160


Actually the shrub administration explicitly recognized an individual right to keep and bear arms.

holder,obama et al don't. So it is a matter of opinion and not law. In spite of the Heller decision. Opinion and ideology overturns rule of law it seems.

That particular quote by Jefferson may be incorrectly attributed but there are plenty along the same lines that aren't. The same is true with Washington. I am reasonably certain Washington didn't play much, if any role in Shay's rebellion. You are probably confusing it with the Whiskey Rebellion.

Jefferson in fact wrote this to a friend regarding Shay's rebellion, "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure".

The concept of the second amendment as a check on tyranny didn't "arise" in the 60s. It has been there since it was ratified and is the very reason it exists. Read the anti federalists. I think even the loathsome federalist hamilton agreed.

Your "in truth" remark is ridiculous on the face of it.
You are equating very different histories and cultures as the same. With a good dose of hysteria and unsubstantiated opinion about anarchy thrown in.

Calling out the militia to suppress "insurrection" is in the CONstitution.

The question is who would be the more Constitutional, a government that has devolved into tyranny or those seeking to restore the Constitution?

Last Edited by s. d. butler on 12/18/2012 07:31 PM
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 27972246
United States
12/18/2012 07:15 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: The right to bear arms (2nd Amend) is specifically intended for DEFENSE AGAINST MODERN ARMY
but 18625087 has an agenda, so there is no point in arguing with him
 Quoting: IssueX


Hey, we all have an agenda, all of us, just not necessarily the SAME agenda.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 27972246
United States
12/18/2012 07:17 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: The right to bear arms (2nd Amend) is specifically intended for DEFENSE AGAINST MODERN ARMY
I don't think militia is mentioned in the CONstitution.
 Quoting: s. d. butler


I suggest for your own personal enlightment, that you yourself actually go read the U.S. Consitution, or if you cannot read, have someone you trust and know well to read it to you.
Thor's Hamster

User ID: 29656734
United States
12/18/2012 07:18 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: The right to bear arms (2nd Amend) is specifically intended for DEFENSE AGAINST MODERN ARMY
clappa

You're 100% correct, OP.
Apollo astronauts couldn't have passed through Van Allen's Belt. Van Allen wore suspenders.
s. d. butler

User ID: 974819
United States
12/18/2012 07:21 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: The right to bear arms (2nd Amend) is specifically intended for DEFENSE AGAINST MODERN ARMY
I don't think militia is mentioned in the CONstitution.
 Quoting: s. d. butler


I suggest for your own personal enlightment, that you yourself actually go read the U.S. Consitution, or if you cannot read, have someone you trust and know well to read it to you.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 27972246


I already did guy. I corrected myself after checking. Read the corrected post above. For your personal enlightenment I suggest you refrain from gratuitous insult.

Last Edited by s. d. butler on 12/18/2012 07:29 PM
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 27972246
United States
12/18/2012 07:24 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: The right to bear arms (2nd Amend) is specifically intended for DEFENSE AGAINST MODERN ARMY
The ability to own freely without license any fire arm we see fit was taken away around the time of prohibition. Soldiers used to bring home browning automatics compliments of uncle Sam. These were fully automatic and given to the people(soldiers). Depression and hard times led these people to either turn to crime or sell their weapons to law breakers. This was the last time in the history of the united states when a free American citizen could legally be equally or better equipped than law enforcement or the military. The gangsters had v8 fords bored out with two speed rear ends and automatic weapons, while the law enforcement was equipped with inline six stock dodges revolvers and shotguns.

It is far too late to cry about the second amendment, it was scraped years ago.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 1018225


There has been no duley Congressional Passed nor State Legistlature Ratification, nor any People's referendum on the Nation-wide Ratification of any Constitional Amendment to Repeal nor even modified in any way, the Standing 2nd Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. And you know that. And you know that your assertion is nothing more that hot-air, and the People that read you, the vast majority of them also know your assertion is hot-air and perhaps wishful thinking.

Thank you, however, on that part about US History... except your false assertion that the 2nd Amendment was scraped.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 27972246
United States
12/18/2012 07:27 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: The right to bear arms (2nd Amend) is specifically intended for DEFENSE AGAINST MODERN ARMY
I don't think militia is mentioned in the CONstitution.
 Quoting: s. d. butler


I suggest for your own personal enlightment, that you yourself actually go read the U.S. Consitution, or if you cannot read, have someone you trust and know well to read it to you.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 27972246


I already did guy. I stand corrected. Read the corrected post above. For your personal enlightenment I suggest you refrain from gratuitous insult.
 Quoting: s. d. butler


I apologize for the subtle insult, it was not really my intention to insult you, it was meant to remind people to help those that cannot read to set down and read it to them.

Still the admonishment is toward those who do not bother in the least to set down and read it, but whom think they already know it because someone said this or that pertaining to it.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 27972246
United States
12/18/2012 07:40 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: The right to bear arms (2nd Amend) is specifically intended for DEFENSE AGAINST MODERN ARMY
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."
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 20078449


This is the start of the civil war in America. MSM and your Government are flat out calling for your guns. Whatever side you stand on this, know one thing, this will get bloody. Before you say that there has already been blood shed, that will pale in comparison to what is to come. Check your fucking Government now. Tell them who the boss is. We the people. We the people are.


Power is not a means, it is an end. One does not establish a dictatorship in order to safeguard a revolution; one makes the revolution in order to establish the dictatorship.

George Orwell
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 27205820


Remember in the 1st U.S. Civil War, both the Federal Government, and the Peoples of the States in rebellion against that Federal Government, both sides used every weapon that was known to man at that time. All of them, and even invented new ones.

The State Legislatures of the States in "Rebellion" against the standing U.S. Government asserted that they had the 'order' by the People of their State to fight against what those People understand in their own opinions that the then standing U.S. Goverment was a Tyrant and in a state of Tyranny... and those people chose to take up arms against said U.S. Government, Those People used every known weapon available in their own perceived fight against tyranny. They used their understanding of the 2nd Amendment of the U.S. Constitution as it was intended to be used.

That self same U.S. Constitution also provided Article One, Section Eight -- Congress shall have the power to.... :

"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;" -- Article One, Section Eight.

And under Section 10 - Powers prohibited of States:
"No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation..."

One must come to understand the ENTIRE U.S. Constitution, all its Amendments, and in fact all Treaties that the U.S. Congress over time have Approved of. Doing any thing else is to work against the U.S. Constitution, either ignorantly or willingly.

Remember, both the North, and the South their States, and their peoples were both of the opinion that they had correctly Interpreted and understood the U.S. Constitution. This disagreement brought on the U.S. Civil War, that killed a half a million American troops, and countless civilians.

Both sides used every known weapon and invented new ones.

So, yes, in the next US Civil War we can well imagine that nuclear weapons will be used by both sides of the battle, as well as chemical weapons and biological weapons.

Civil Wars are essentially a Fight to the Death.

Get your heads out of the pot-smoke, alcohol confused, drug dumbed down mental case and become very very sober about all of this.

There are in fact External forces working overtime within the USA to bring to past as Second U.S. Civil War. These will call it a "Revolution", it will be the end of the USA as we now and have ever known the USA, and the People.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 27972246


over 600,000 killed in civil war that number today would mean over 6 million, we dont have a clue what will happen in the future but i seriously doubt they will use nuclear weapons. keep in mind the rest of the world will be watching
 Quoting: mrmuffins69


"keep in mind the rest of the world will be watching..."

Yes, and keep in mind what is now going on in Syria, and all the international armament that is being funneled into that Land... and to only the weapons but also foreign military advisors -- and media, and that is on both 'sides' of that Civil War.

Just as other nations are attempting to find reason and method to security Assad and the Government of Syria's chemical weapons .. so to foreign nations will be in a very big hurry to 'Secure' the current US nuclear arsenal, and its chemical and biological weapons.

This is not a game.
s. d. butler

User ID: 974819
United States
12/18/2012 07:41 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: The right to bear arms (2nd Amend) is specifically intended for DEFENSE AGAINST MODERN ARMY
Thanks Piers; but, you are wrong: the United States Supreme Court has held that the right to keep and bear arms is an "individual right"....
 Quoting: Elsabiades... 28025858


A proper citation to that assertion definitely needs to be made. Where in the volume of the U.S. Supreme Court Decisions is your assertion to be found? In other words Linky Poo, but not of any ordinary website and blog, but rather that of the official U.S. Supreme Court?

Many assert many things. But in matters of this import, it is fitting and proper that such citations be made provided to the readers of this thread and such sorts of threads.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 27972246


Heller and McDonald decisions, look it up yourself.
s. d. butler

User ID: 974819
United States
12/18/2012 07:46 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: The right to bear arms (2nd Amend) is specifically intended for DEFENSE AGAINST MODERN ARMY
I don't think militia is mentioned in the CONstitution.
 Quoting: s. d. butler


I suggest for your own personal enlightment, that you yourself actually go read the U.S. Consitution, or if you cannot read, have someone you trust and know well to read it to you.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 27972246


I already did guy. I stand corrected. Read the corrected post above. For your personal enlightenment I suggest you refrain from gratuitous insult.
 Quoting: s. d. butler


I apologize for the subtle insult, it was not really my intention to insult you, it was meant to remind people to help those that cannot read to set down and read it to them.

Still the admonishment is toward those who do not bother in the least to set down and read it, but whom think they already know it because someone said this or that pertaining to it.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 27972246


I kind of admire your disingenuous reply.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 27972246
United States
12/18/2012 07:50 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: The right to bear arms (2nd Amend) is specifically intended for DEFENSE AGAINST MODERN ARMY
I don't know if it was mentioned yet, but I love it when some anti-gun tard says "Hurr but back then they were talking about muskets, not semi-autos of destuction!"

Uhh newsflash you idjuts, muskets WERE cutting edge military technology at the time. The populace was as armed as the god damned military was.

Hell, I wouldn't mind having an Abrams in the garage and a couple silos for some ICBM's on the farm. In fact, I would hold myself much more responsible for them them my government surely would.
 Quoting: Sneetch


Yes, in those days, even Canon and Mortars were carried in by the People.. in arms. Had they had Sopwith Camels and 50 pound aerial bombs they would have used them too. Oh, and they used BOMBS.. yes, folks, bombs.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 27972246
United States
12/18/2012 07:51 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: The right to bear arms (2nd Amend) is specifically intended for DEFENSE AGAINST MODERN ARMY
And they did use ROCKETS.. as well.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 20186508
United States
12/18/2012 08:02 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: The right to bear arms (2nd Amend) is specifically intended for DEFENSE AGAINST MODERN ARMY
"The strongest reason for people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.” – Thomas Jefferson
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 20078449


Yet you patriots so adamant of having guns so you can fight against a corrupt government did nothing about 911 or the bank bailouts or its intentional crash. Cowards who just want to keep their toys but don't truly care what they are for.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 29330683


U.S. citizens are generally a peaceful people. We are not going to start shooting until they directly come after us.

As long as the people are armed, the Gov. overlords are NOT going to attempt to attack us. What they want to do is disarm us first.

So, the arming of the population is a defensive measure (initially) that is meant to hold the Government in check. Obviously, it's not working. But that is because TPTB have superior military forces than the people. In order to rectify the situation, the people must re-vitalize the Militias, and more heavily arm, train, and equip themselves. Certainly, we must not reduce our level of arms.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 20078449


We lost the battle against tyranny long ago. You're dreaming if you think the American people would ever stand a chance against their own government's power. Ask the people of Afghanistan and Pakistan how that's going for them.
s. d. butler

User ID: 974819
United States
12/18/2012 08:28 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: The right to bear arms (2nd Amend) is specifically intended for DEFENSE AGAINST MODERN ARMY
"The strongest reason for people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.” – Thomas Jefferson
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 20078449


Yet you patriots so adamant of having guns so you can fight against a corrupt government did nothing about 911 or the bank bailouts or its intentional crash. Cowards who just want to keep their toys but don't truly care what they are for.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 29330683


U.S. citizens are generally a peaceful people. We are not going to start shooting until they directly come after us.

As long as the people are armed, the Gov. overlords are NOT going to attempt to attack us. What they want to do is disarm us first.

So, the arming of the population is a defensive measure (initially) that is meant to hold the Government in check. Obviously, it's not working. But that is because TPTB have superior military forces than the people. In order to rectify the situation, the people must re-vitalize the Militias, and more heavily arm, train, and equip themselves. Certainly, we must not reduce our level of arms.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 20078449


We lost the battle against tyranny long ago. You're dreaming if you think the American people would ever stand a chance against their own government's power. Ask the people of Afghanistan and Pakistan how that's going for them.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 20186508


The conflict against govt tyranny is just getting started.

You are dreaming,ignorant or a disinfo agent if you think govt is all powerful.

The U.S. has already lost the war in Afghanistan. All that remains is to withdraw.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 17687147
United States
12/18/2012 08:34 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: The right to bear arms (2nd Amend) is specifically intended for DEFENSE AGAINST MODERN ARMY
Exactly!! Has absolutely nothing to do with hunting. So sick and tired of hearing the politicians and libs saying that we don't need assault rifles for deer hunting.
 Quoting: Evil Cretin


how many bomb carrying drones do you think you could shoot down when the military comes in? you wont ever see it coming so your arguements to keep automatic guns is mute.

News