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.
A. It's a dependent clause. The second clause is dependent on the first. It is implied in the language. ... "A well-regulated militia being necessary for...., the right to bear arms ..."
B. The various states have National Guards; which are well-regulated. That qualifies as a militia. The only folks calling themselves militias these days are extremist 50 year old racists playing with their guns up in Michigan and Montana.
No it does not. Militias were specifically intended to fight against big, over reaching government, not be a part of it. You must have been a revisionist history major in college.
Yes I believe in the 2nd., I do not fear my gov't. I belive in our form of Gov't and the ability of the people to change it at the ballot box.
Well that's fine. However that is not what the framers of the Consitution believed who created the 2nd Ammendment. The 2nd ammendment allows you to believe in the ballot box.
Military Soc. Sec.
National Parks system and all the other dept's
The congress (even though it looks like nothing is being done)
The Pres.
I see no major issues that would require a fight against our Gov't.
Maybe you can educate me
I stopped reading after the bolded. I'm sorry, but if you believe that Social Security is being managed properly, then I must end our conversation abruptly. Thanks for your time.
No it does not. Militias were specifically intended to fight against big, over reaching government, not be a part of it. You must have been a revisionist history major in college.
You think the founders of this government were arming people so those people could shoot them (the founders). That is pretty insane.
Just because you don't like Obama, doesn't mean that you can revisionist the founders and act like that the institution they created needed to be overthrown via guns. I mean if that was their concern, they would of written an easier exit clause from the document. . .i.e. secession/etc.
They wouldn't of said "lets arm everyone, so they can shoot us one day when they don't like us anymore"
No it does not. Militias were specifically intended to fight against big, over reaching government, not be a part of it. You must have been a revisionist history major in college.
Militias were state-organized entities of part-time soldiers during the Revolutionary and early National period. Today's National Guards are direct descendants of the militia system.
So we are in agreement than this amendment is outdated, and no longer useful nor are we in a place/context where the US as a government is threatened?
I mean you could justify hunting, but to stop a potential tyrant? What else? Shoot asteroids as they come out of the sky? Stop invading aliens?
No we are not in agreement. I can't forsee the future and neither can you. That's why the framers created the 2nd Ammendment. This isnt about the US government being threatened. It's about protecting yourself from governmental tyranny whether foreign or domestic. You dont need to now but that dosen't mean you won't in the future or your childrens children.
You think the founders of this government were arming people so those people could shoot them (the founders). That is pretty insane.
Just because you don't like Obama, doesn't mean that you can revisionist the founders and act like that the institution they created needed to be overthrown via guns. I mean if that was their concern, they would of written an easier exit clause from the document. . .i.e. secession/etc.
They wouldn't of said "lets arm everyone, so they can shoot us one day when they don't like us anymore"
You need to read more. That is exactly what they were doing.
I stopped reading after the bolded. I'm sorry, but if you believe that Social Security is being managed properly, then I must end our conversation abruptly. Thanks for your time.
You know the old saying. Cant take the heat get out of the Kitchen and my favorite consider the source and move on.
You think the founders of this government were arming people so those people could shoot them (the founders). That is pretty insane.
Just because you don't like Obama, doesn't mean that you can revisionist the founders and act like that the institution they created needed to be overthrown via guns. I mean if that was their concern, they would of written an easier exit clause from the document. . .i.e. secession/etc.
They wouldn't of said "lets arm everyone, so they can shoot us one day when they don't like us anymore"
The founding fathers specifically created a very limited federal government, because that is what they fled in Europe. They wanted to give the people as much ability to fight governmental tyranny as they could, hence the 2nd Ammendment. This country was based in defiance of a HUGE government industrial complex, now you on the left embrace it.
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.
