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.
Here is the actual amendment: "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."
The State needs to feel secure so the State will always maintain a standing army. Therefore the people must maintain their right to be armed.
The guys who wrote those documents had just finished an armed conflict with their previous State. They well understood that any State is going to have a standing army.
The State needs to feel secure so the State will always maintain a standing army. Therefore the people must maintain their right to be armed.
The guys who wrote those documents had just finished an armed conflict with their previous State. They well understood that any State is going to have a standing army.
The Founders were generally opposed to standing armies. In every other place in the Bill of Rights where "the people" is used, it is used to describe a personal right, not a group right. Why would the Second Amendment be any different?
The Founders were generally opposed to standing armies. In every other place in the Bill of Rights where "the people" is used, it is used to describe a personal right, not a group right. Why would the Second Amendment be any different?
It is not any different. 'The People' have the right to keep and bear Arms, that shall not be infringed.
All this militia crap has nothing to do with self-sufficiency. If you don't have a rifle, how are you going to shoot a deer or elk? If you don't have a shotgun, how are you going to shoot pheasant, ducks or geese? Those rabbits and squirrels are not going to volunteer to get eaten, though if you know how to set snares you might not starve.
A selection of skinning and butcher knives is necessary for preparedness too.
All this militia crap has nothing to do with self-sufficiency. If you don't have a rifle, how are you going to shoot a deer or elk? If you don't have a shotgun, how are you going to shoot pheasant, ducks or geese?
One being true doesn't make the other not true.
Rifles and other weapons are for both putting food on the table,
and for putting despots and desperadoes in the ground.
One being true doesn't make the other not true.
Rifles and other weapons are for both putting food on the table,
and for putting despots and desperadoes in the ground.
Mine has put a lot of food on the table, but never a despot or desperado in the ground. Turn off the TV and go outside. Reality awaits.
My first two rounds of snake shot came in handy and that rabid fox that thought it was rambo... died of lead poisoning.
You actually got a kill on a fox with snake shot! Awesome. What would you say the distance was? (I know, in the heat of the moment, that wasn't really on your mind, so any guestimate is good) I am glad you dispatched the fox before it could infect anything further.
You actually got a kill on a fox with snake shot! Awesome. What would you say the distance was? (I know, in the heat of the moment, that wasn't really on your mind, so any guestimate is good) I am glad you dispatched the fox before it could infect anything further.
The rabid fox actually decided to commit suicide by attacking my two Catahoula's ... both seasoned hog dogs.
A 20 lb Fox trying to zombie attack two 70lb dogs.... fur was flyin'.
I was able to get my 2 dogs in the clear, rolled the cylinder and put a .38 special+P round through it's head. It was already 1/2 dead. However I did kill a big raccoon with snake shot trying to get the rabbits.
Here is the actual amendment: "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."
i always wonder why people have the slightest notion after reading the 2nd amendment that a government sponsored militia membership is required to own a gun. under no understanding in the english language does that phrase say that. that phrase clearly says that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. there is no logical interpretation that suggests that the first part of that sentence limits the last part.
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.
