Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
If Americans didn't have guns there would have been no War of Independence.
They very well knew that the populace needed to be able to own and use guns.
2A wasn't written until 1789, in response to Washington disbanding the army in 1783 after the Revolutionary War. The " well-regulated militia" phrase means that people should own guns and train as paramilitary groups on a regular basis to serve as first responders in case the country was attacked by hostile forces again. This would give Congress time to fund, raise, train, and field an army.
2A wasn't written until 1789, in response to Washington disbanding the army in 1783 after the Revolutionary War. The " well-regulated militia" phrase means that people should own guns and train as paramilitary groups on a regular basis to serve as first responders in case the country was attacked by hostile forces again. This would give Congress time to fund, raise, train, and field an army.
The American Citizenry is the Militia referred to in our Constitution, to prevent rogue Government takeover.
To be 'well regulated' does not mean there is a set of 'regulations' in the Pentagon somewhere that can be used to create and organize militias.
Is the militiaman matured, personally disciplined, familiar with weapons, and will work with others in times of national crises?
The militia is not supposed to be an expeditionary army. That capability belongs to the 'regular' standing army which is supposed to be an instrument of the government. The militia is an instrument of the people. If individual militiamen meets all of the above expectations, the people will have a formidable force capable of responding to national crises, from foreign invaders to (gasp) a tyrannical government.
The American Founding Fathers were radicals on this issue. They raised the armed citizens above the government. Past civilizations have armed citizens before, but the 2nd Amendment did one better by saying that no one needs permission from the government to be armed. Not for self defense or against a tyrannical government or against invaders. But just to be armed. Self defense, a tyrannical government, or foreign invaders are side issues. But the main issue is that if the citizen CHOSE to be armed, the government cannot forbid him/her from that decision. That is radical.
Japan, Israel, Sweden, the UK, Australia, New Zealand, Canada - take your pick of systems. All of these have violent video games and people with mental health problems. None of them have any problems with mass shootings, or an incidence rate that is statistically negligible. Gun violence on a wide scale is a problem unique to the United States.
On a side note, deaths of children by firearms in Texas has doubled since Abbott took office, and guns have surpassed automobile accidents as the leading cause of death of children in the U. S.
they also have better (more comprehensive) health (mental health) care
you liberals are always saying.. UK, Canada, Australia, Sweden, and even Israel have some form of single payer.... well always saying until there is some shooting, they all of a sudden no talk about health care, just ban weapons
The 2nd amendment was created because we had just fought for our independence and the founders wanted to protect the right of individuals to own any guns they choose without any government interference, oversight, or control.
The right to own guns is and always was an individual right. The 2nd amendment didn’t grant us any rights, and didn’t grant any powers to the federal government to regulate gun ownership or even to regulate militias. It merely said that because we need well-regulated militias to protect our freedom, the RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE to keep and bear arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.
Because we need regular people to be armed to protect us against foreign invaders and governmental abuse, the individual right of people to anonymously own any number of any type of guns we choose will never be regulated, controlled, or restricted by government.
The 2nd amendment merely recognizes our individual right and protects it by prohibiting the government from having any control over that right.
A right, by definition is something you don’t require permission to do. It’s the opposite of a privilege which is permission granted by someone else which can be revoked by them too.
All gun control laws violate not only the 2nd amendment, but also our fundamental and inalienable rights because they presume we require permission to exercise our rights from the government or that we have an obligation to inform government when we exercise them. We don’t.
“we'll regulated” doesn't mean “controlled” which is the usage we have today. It meant “well supplied with the tools in good working order”...… IOW it means that EVERYPERSON should and can own and obtain these supplies (weapons/ammo/cleaning/maintaining supplies) and should have enough of said supplies to be in good working order
and they cant even figure out what the 2nd amendment means.. or how abolishing it would also abolish the 1st, 4th, and 5th amendments too
they also have better (more comprehensive) health (mental health) care
you liberals are always saying.. UK, Canada, Australia, Sweden, and even Israel have some form of single payer.... well always saying until there is some shooting, they all of a sudden no talk about health care, just ban weapons
Every developed, First World country on the globe has some form of Universal Health Care.
No other developed, First World country on the globe has a problem with mass shootings or guns being responsible for the deaths of over 40,000 citizens a year, with 20,000 of those being due to gun violence.
The 2nd amendment was created because we had just fought for our independence and the founders wanted to protect the right of individuals to own any guns they choose without any government interference, oversight, or control.
The right to own guns is and always was an individual right. The 2nd amendment didn’t grant us any rights, and didn’t grant any powers to the federal government to regulate gun ownership or even to regulate militias. It merely said that because we need well-regulated militias to protect our freedom, the RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE to keep and bear arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.
Because we need regular people to be armed to protect us against foreign invaders and governmental abuse, the individual right of people to anonymously own any number of any type of guns we choose will never be regulated, controlled, or restricted by government.
The 2nd amendment merely recognizes our individual right and protects it by prohibiting the government from having any control over that right.
A right, by definition is something you don’t require permission to do. It’s the opposite of a privilege which is permission granted by someone else which can be revoked by them too.
All gun control laws violate not only the 2nd amendment, but also our fundamental and inalienable rights because they presume we require permission to exercise our rights from the government or that we have an obligation to inform government when we exercise them. We don’t.
“we'll regulated” doesn't mean “controlled” which is the usage we have today. It meant “well supplied with the tools in good working order”...… IOW it means that EVERYPERSON should and can own and obtain these supplies (weapons/ammo/cleaning/maintaining supplies) and should have enough of said supplies to be in good working order
and they cant even figure out what the 2nd amendment means.. or how abolishing it would also abolish the 1st, 4th, and 5th amendments too
I would appreciate a source for that interpretation, if you don't mind.
After the Revolutionary War, there was no standing army in case of a future attack. Washington disbanded it in 1783, and Congress had no funds available to maintain a peacetime army. An armed citizenry was cheaper than raising funds for an army, even if Congress had had the money, and would serve as a stopgap in case of attack until an army could be raised, trained, and provisioned to take the field.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
