What do you think?

[Dietrich]

Many of the anti-gun rants have stated that the second amendment was included in the Bill of Rights for the sole intention of creating a militia to defend our young nation.Not for the right of the individual to own firearms.Thankfully,the Supreme Court handed down their landmark ruling to the contrary.My own personal views are that the RKBA amendment does both. I think it insures the right of the individual and makes a provision for a standing armed militia. I believe also that the framers meant that the armed citizen was to fight alongside of the army to defend the Republic.Do you agree or disagree? This forum is for the exchange of ideas and I welcome yours.

[Spank the Monkey]

D,
I agree 100%

[Ol'coot]

I second that and agree 100%

[zena]

I think the average person (ahem!) was to be armed to fight for the Republic or against it if it oversteps its bounds. And I believe our nation's founders wanted to insure our ability to do this into perpetuity.

[Kahrdog]

I think the average person (ahem!) was to be armed to fight for the Republic or against it if it oversteps its bounds. And I believe our nation's founders wanted to insure our ability to do this into perpetuity.

You're absolutely right. The primary reason for the second amendment was so the citizens could take back the goverment if it got away from the constitution. The framers knew that goverment always tries to grow and expand. The more government we have; the less freedom we have. The only thing that stands between the citizens and tyranny is the right to keep our arms. As far as I'm concerned the rest of the bill of rights isn't worth the paper it's written on without the right to keep and bear arms. The constitution was written to limit the goverment's reach. The 2nd Amendment is the teeth that allows that to happen. Ben Franklin once said, "We won't need the Second Amendment until they try to take it away."

Kahrdog

[Raoul]

It would have been hard to have an armed milita without arms. http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/images/shrug.gif

[Longitude Zero]

I think the average person (ahem!) was to be armed to fight for the Republic or against it if it oversteps its bounds. And I believe our nation's founders wanted to insure our ability to do this into perpetuity.

Exactly Right!!! In reading the Federalist Papers it is plain the Founding Fathers were more interested in giving citizens the power to take back their government when it went off track than any other reason.

[Colossal Uprising]

How do you form a militia without arms? People have to have arms to create a militia, without them, it isn't a militia but is nothing more than a civic club.

The right of American Citizens to keep and bear arms is imperative for insuring that a dictatorial regime never rises to power in our country. By having 30 million + citizens with firearms, we can easily overthrow a non-representative government.

Not to mention that we can repel any invasion threat - even if our military is in 100% engagement in a far away fight.

[medezyner]

Gun owners are a powerful force; individually and as an organization. There is a huge majority of citizens who believe in the right to protect themselves and their families, but are unsure of how to get training, how to get involved and how to stand up and be heard. As stated by Colossal Uprising: if it we not for our freedom to bear arms, we’d be little more than a civic club. I finally got off my ass, got involved and became an NRA Certified Instructor. That was my way and that’s only a start. Get involved to protect and strengthen our RKBR. The Amendments laid out in the Bill of Rights were to protect citizens. Once that Second Amendment is gone, who will protect us?

[jocko]

I have been a Life member since 1961 and Ihave sjpported the NRA with individiual donations for the last 20 years. Not sure there is any better place to spend my gun rights money either..

[medezyner]

ditto, none better

[wyntrout]

The Bill of Rights is such, a list of the PEOPLE's rights. The Second Amendment is about self-defense and is not granted by the government. It prohibits the government from denying the people's right to keep and bear arms for their own defense, as well as being able to form a group of citizens for common defense -- a militia. The liberals always bring up hunting and having hunted with their dad or not having a problem with a hunting rifle or shotgun, as long as they are single-shot. It was never about hunting -- it's for self-protection from all threats and enemies, which especially includes a tyrannical government. The right is not limited by the constitution to any particular weapon, but when written, a citizen could have the-state-of-the-art weaponry. It just happens that state-of-the-art has advanced, as has our means of transportation.
If we don't have the means to defend ourselves, our family and friends, and our property, then we are truly "sheeple" to be plundered by anyone who wants to shear us, butcher us, or do anything else imaginable done to sheep. :eek:
Congress hasn't strayed from the limited Constitutional powers granted by the people who wrote it, they are in full gallop away from it and snatching up any and all of our "freedoms" they can. States' rights has long been a joke with the Imperial Federal Government extorting states to give in to their demands by threatening to withhold the funds collected from and for the state's use.
Gee, I don't know where I'm going with this -- preaching to the choir, I know! :confused:
It's frustrating to watch as our way of life is "fundamentally changed." The people who caused the problems are going to "fix" them... yeah, without reading the damn bills they pass -- too much trouble... got to get home for the holidays... so what if someone "pencils in" changes to the bill before or after prezbo signs it. No one bothered to read it, so how would they know if it had been altered. Just get it done quickly because people are waking up and realizing that our current president IS some kind of "Manchurian Candidate". Never has so little been known about a candidate or any information so tightly controlled about a candidate's educational history and background, or so enabled by the liberal press... well, maybe John Kerry's military records... which would have been interesting since he was still attached to the US Navy when he went over to France and aided our enemies during wartime.
Anybody who grew up with the Iron Curtain and the Cold War, saw some of the misery under those benevolent Communist dictators who were the only ones who had plenty... they being the (self-chosen) elite who decided what each person's share was, or more often wasn't.
Freedom and capitalism made us the greatest nation ever and the powers that be are doing their damnedest to destroy both concepts... and certainly alter the hell out of the first.
Well, I get sidetracked easily and am not an orator or writer, but I'm so fed up with all the people and their ever-increasing "rights" to stuff that other people have earned. And the government buying their votes by promising them more stuff... that they take from the people who earned it and hoped to get ahead and retire, not have to keep working to pay for all of the stuff promised by the whole lot of politicians only interested in getting re-elected and feathering their own nests. Sigh. I had better shut up. What were "we" talking about, anyhow?:confused:
Wynn

[medezyner]

Thanks wyntrout, I take solace in knowing there are plenty others out there that are as frustrated as I. Your reference to the Manchurian Candidate is right on! When you look into the radical people who have been programming him since childhood, you’ll shake your head in disgust. The sheeple elected him and want nothing more than the government to be the solver of all or problems, from cradle to grave. Too many Americans have been conditioned by the self-serving unprincipled politicians and lying media. My children have not been conditioned or lulled into a false sense of government security; their eyes are wide open.

[mx5fan]

I think the average person (ahem!) was to be armed to fight for the Republic or against it if it oversteps its bounds. And I believe our nation's founders wanted to insure our ability to do this into perpetuity.

Zena,

Well said and you summed it up quite nicely.

[wyntrout]

Thanks, I thought that no one would make any more posts after my little rant. I wish that I could start over getting a house. I would build something to withstand the hurricanes down here, tornadoes, AND light assaults! If the SHTF, there will be a lot of have-nots and welfare types that will be looking to share your stuff. I sure would like to have a defensible home... maybe if I win the lottery! Ha! Ha. :D
Wynn

PS: Do you like my attempt at scholarship and sophistication with my "signature" -- "When catapults are outlawed...."?

[getsome]

April 19th 1775..A day when citizen marksmen met history and LIBERTY was born... God Bless America!!!! Thank you for serving your Country to all Veterans current and past....You are the reason we are safe, strong and have RIGHTS!!!

[medezyner]

If the SHTF, there will be a lot of have-nots and welfare types that will be looking to share your stuff. Wynn

PS: Do you like my attempt at scholarship and sophistication with my "signature" -- "When catapults are outlawed...."?


When the SHTF a few of my neighbors will be sharing their stuff; well stocked with food but no guns. I guess they can always throw a few cans of beans at the BG's.

My curiosity had me looking up your quote a few post ago, but then you knew people would...clever

[wyntrout]

Thanks, I was trying to think of something different... and classy(?) Latin wasn't one of the seven or so languages I've studied, but you see it all the time and can understand a bit of it. For a "dead language" it still gets a lot of use.
As for the "sharing", a lot of people don't get robbed at home because there is the very possible chance of finding an armed homeowner. One of the last photos I saw about that subject, had a sign in a guy's yard pointing to his neighbor's house. I just ran down the email with the picture and resized it. I can see selling signs that read "This house protected by GUNS. Try next door" ... or something like that.
125127

Wynn:D

[tv_racin_fan]

Many of the anti-gun rants have stated that the second amendment was included in the Bill of Rights for the sole intention of creating a militia to defend our young nation.Not for the right of the individual to own firearms.Thankfully,the Supreme Court handed down their landmark ruling to the contrary.My own personal views are that the RKBA amendment does both. I think it insures the right of the individual and makes a provision for a standing armed militia. I believe also that the framers meant that the armed citizen was to fight alongside of the army to defend the Republic.Do you agree or disagree? This forum is for the exchange of ideas and I welcome yours.

In part they are correct. NOW what they miss is that it doesn't say that anyone has to be a part of any such militia in order to keep and bear arms, and in fact the individual people have to be allowed to be armed as they see fit in order for there to be a possibility of having an armed militia. The founding fathers did not originally intend for there to be a standing army. Anti gunners assume that the army can handle the job and the militia isn't needed any more and they seeming don't care if you have the ability to defend yourself or not. Funny how some of them have armed guards to defend them and their family...

[wyntrout]

Deer hunting after Obama Gun Reform:
172

[Raoul]

Latin wasn't one of the seven or so languages I've studied, but you see it all the time and can understand a bit of it. For a "dead language" it still gets a lot of use.

125127

Wynn:D

Now there's Latin for the masses. My old dead Latin teachers would be overjoyed.

Latin Dictionary and Grammar Aid (http://archives.nd.edu/latgramm.htm)

[wyntrout]

I'm not much into catapults, but I love trebuchets -- awesome when properly built and used. Those things are really complicated and there's a lot going on when one is properly functioning. I've seen some good documentaries and "recreations" of trebuchets -- not practical to carry or house, though. I'll have to stick to practical sized "hand-cannons" -- appropriate to the season's clothing for concealability. Somewhere along the way, while I was researching those things, I ran across that "when catapults are outlawed..." expression -- neat. All you have to do these days is Google your expression and you can find what you were looking for.:D

OH, here's a new abbreviation -- MHC... for Mini-Hand-Cannon... as in a Buffalo Bore stoked P380!
(I looked up mini-hand-cannon and it's usually used in describing much larger handguns... Micro-Hand-Cannon... as in "µHC", or uHC ??) :59:

Wynn :D

[getsome]

Hello all, I was watching a program on public television this weekend about the United States Constitution and the Bill of Rights...It seems there were several different variations of the punctuation and capitalization of some of the amendments... They all say pretty much the same thing but in slightly different ways such as the 2nd amendment passed by congress reads: 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 copies sent to the states to be ratified had this capitalization and punctuation: 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. It says the same thing but you have to remember that people then did not talk the same as we do today and how they said things sometimes changed the meaning...I think the reason there is so much confusion with the second amendment and just what the Founding Fathers were trying to say is due to this...It really isn't clear and seems somewhat incomplete but here is a real interesting thing the show brought out....There are hand written documents that have this wording of the second amendment: In Order to establish a well regulated Militia necessary to the security of a Free State, the right of the people to Keep and Bear arms shall not be infringed...Now that verision makes complete sense....Those four words at the first makes things so much more clear....At the time this was written the United States didnt have a conventional standing army as we do today...Citizen soldiers were all we had to fight with and without armed citizens the country had no way to defend its self and that Charlie Brown is the real meaning of our second amendment.....

[tv_racin_fan]

They didn't want a standing army. Sad thing is the people didn't want to do their militia duty either which resulted in the mess of the War of 1812 and the sacking of Washington and the burning of the White House. Which resulted in the formation of a standing army....

getsome, as for the different wordings of the second amendment I happen to agree with you. IF they had stuck with one of the other of the several different proposed wordings we might have a more clear understanding. But then those who keep pushing the so called common sense gun control laws dont care what the second amendment says or means.

[.45mac.40]

:yo:

Having spent time in tha'
US Army
US Army Reserve
US Army IRR
Air National Guard (Az,)
Calif Army National Guard (Ca.)
US Army Retired/Reserve
US Army Retired.
Total Retired time= 32 years, 8 months and 4 days !!! But, who's counting ??
AND....
some US Citizen, status...... I AGREE !!!!

Mac