The second amendment (Page 2): THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE!

Jim0001 Loc: originally from Tennessee, now Virginia, USA

JR-57 wrote:

In the 18th century “well regulated” meant well-trained, well-organized, well-armed, well-disciplined. It didn't mean “regulation” by a regulatory state.

Your question has no practical relevance.

If you were going down a street in a canoe and your wings fell off; how many peaches could you put in a glass?

hat question is as ludicrous and relevant as the question you ask.

THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE!

jfhubel Loc: Baldwinsville, NY

Kevyn wrote:

If you ignore the “well regulated militia” part of the second amendment as the activist Supreme Court has should all arms be protected and allowed?

It's not the guns it's the nuts that use them illegally. The Democrat answer to that is to try and take away the guns from law abiding citizens when at a time more than ever they need to protect themselves. Switzerland is a prime example where the reverse is true:

"Switzerland has one of the highest rates of gun ownership in the world, with over 2 million firearms in circulation of its 8.2 million citizens. Swiss citizens regularly learn to shoot when they are still children, and the country even hosts national shooting competitions for kids aged 13-18. And yet, in 2016 there were only 47 gun-related homicides in the country."

Sew_What

American Vet wrote:

Well, it seems that both sides like to ignore anything that isn't convenient to the why they think. The Second Amendment says quite specifically..."a well-regulated militia" and in 1787 when the greatest document ever written was signed, a well-regulated militia drilled weekly and submitted to the civilian authority where they could be activated by the governor at the request of the President. In fact, George Washington did just that when he called up the militia of 4 states during the Whiskey Rebellion. Now I bring this up because militia didn't activate themselves but responded equally to whichever governor or president called them up at the time.
The phrase "well-regulated" was in common use long before 1789 and remained so for a century thereafter. It referred to the property of something being in proper working order. Something that was well-regulated was calibrated correctly, functioning as expected. Establishing government oversight of the people's arms was not only not the intent in using the phrase in the 2nd amendment, it was precisely to render the government powerless to do so that the founders wrote it.
https://constitution.org/1-Constitution/cons/wellregu.htm

So do you think the founders thought it would be a good idea to put weapons of a power they couldn't imagine
Exactly what weapons are you referring to? And how do you know the Founding Fathers couldn't imagine more advanced weapons?

in the hands in the hands of individuals whose only objective was to overthrow the government when one ideology is in charge or do you think if Biden called up the militia that the conservative yahoo's in them would come running to the defense of our nation?
inane blather

It doesn't matter what words are written in a document; they can only be as great as the mentality of the people who act upon them. And right now, we have a bunch of idiots with weapons of a power that endangers this nation, and I don't think that was the intent of the founders when they penned the world's greatest document.
I agree - many people are concerned about the bunch of idiots in the White House. They clearly present a threat and danger to freedom. And it was the intent of the Founding Fathers for the citizens to have the ability to protect themselves from a tyrannical government. "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"

i Well, it seems that both sides like to ignore a... (show quote)

Very good points

son of witless

PeterS wrote:

Well, it seems that both sides like to ignore anyt... (show quote)

" 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. "

Funny how you left out " the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. "

What part of that do I need to splain to you ??????????????????????????????????????

Radar OReilly

Publius Twee wrote:

I forgot a very important comment. No one citizen... (show quote)

A Well written post. Our Constitution is the World's greatest document upholding freedom, life and liberty.

crazylibertarian Loc: Florida by way of New York & Rhode Island

Kevyn wrote:

If you ignore the “well regulated militia” part of the second amendment as the activist Supreme Court has should all arms be protected and allowed?

This from a man who believes that a fetus has no rights until it is born. So, if you add about ten minutes to your life, up to that time or even until you had taken your first breath, it would have been permissible for an abortionist to slit the back of your head, suck out your brain, and then deliver you so you could die outside the womb. Everyone should consider this when evaluating his postings.

JFlorio Loc: Seminole Florida

crazylibertarian wrote:

This from a man who believes that a fetus has no rights until it is born. So, if you add about ten minutes to your life, up to that time or even until you had taken your first breath, it would have been permissible for an abortionist to slit the back of your head, suck out your brain, and then deliver you so you could die outside the womb. Everyone should consider this when evaluating his postings.

I believe that’s what happened to Kevyn. The doctor sucked his brain out, but to the dismay of his parents, he lived.

Sonny Magoo Loc: Where pot pie is boiled in a kettle

Kevyn wrote:

If you ignore the “well regulated militia” part of the second amendment as the activist Supreme Court has should all arms be protected and allowed?

What is militia??
Come, let's hear your explanation.
Thanks for showing us how ignorant you are

Sonny Magoo Loc: Where pot pie is boiled in a kettle

I'll give you all a hint...
When me and my friends take up arms against tyranny...THAT'S MILITIA!
..and it's in our (patriots) best interest to be ready!

Parky60 Loc: People's Republic of Illinois

Sonny Magoo wrote:

I'll give you all a hint...
When me and my friends take up arms against tyranny...THAT'S MILITIA!
..and it's in our (patriots) best interest to be ready!

According to Noah Webster’s First Edition of An American Dictionary of the English Language, which was compiled within 40 years of the ratification of the Constitution, a WELL-REGULATED MILITIA can be defined as the body of soldiers in a state who are good order and thoroughly enrolled for discipline, but not engaged in actual service except in emergencies; as distinguished from regular troops, whose sole occupation is war or military service.

Which fits your description.

Jim0001 Loc: originally from Tennessee, now Virginia, USA

American Vet wrote:

Well, it seems that both sides like to ignore anything that isn't convenient to the why they think. The Second Amendment says quite specifically..."a well-regulated militia" and in 1787 when the greatest document ever written was signed, a well-regulated militia drilled weekly and submitted to the civilian authority where they could be activated by the governor at the request of the President. In fact, George Washington did just that when he called up the militia of 4 states during the Whiskey Rebellion. Now I bring this up because militia didn't activate themselves but responded equally to whichever governor or president called them up at the time.
The phrase "well-regulated" was in common use long before 1789 and remained so for a century thereafter. It referred to the property of something being in proper working order. Something that was well-regulated was calibrated correctly, functioning as expected. Establishing government oversight of the people's arms was not only not the intent in using the phrase in the 2nd amendment, it was precisely to render the government powerless to do so that the founders wrote it.
https://constitution.org/1-Constitution/cons/wellregu.htm

So do you think the founders thought it would be a good idea to put weapons of a power they couldn't imagine
Exactly what weapons are you referring to? And how do you know the Founding Fathers couldn't imagine more advanced weapons?

in the hands in the hands of individuals whose only objective was to overthrow the government when one ideology is in charge or do you think if Biden called up the militia that the conservative yahoo's in them would come running to the defense of our nation?
inane blather

It doesn't matter what words are written in a document; they can only be as great as the mentality of the people who act upon them. And right now, we have a bunch of idiots with weapons of a power that endangers this nation, and I don't think that was the intent of the founders when they penned the world's greatest document.
I agree - many people are concerned about the bunch of idiots in the White House. They clearly present a threat and danger to freedom. And it was the intent of the Founding Fathers for the citizens to have the ability to protect themselves from a tyrannical government. "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"

i Well, it seems that both sides like to ignore a... (show quote)

ACP45 Loc: Rhode Island

Excellent historical context! Comment Kevyn?

Jim0001 Loc: originally from Tennessee, now Virginia, USA

Kevyn wrote:

If you ignore the “well regulated militia” part of the second amendment as the activist Supreme Court has should all arms be protected and allowed?

So, Kevyn: when the Supreme Court rules according to the Constitution, which is their mission, they are activist?

fullspinzoo

PeterS wrote:

Well, it seems that both sides like to ignore anyt... (show quote)

Go support your "walking vegetable"!

R.D.Dukes Loc: Southern Arizona & central Washington

I am Veteran with wo tours in Viet Nam one on Hamburger Hill and have seen the bad acts of uncontrolled governments. The 2nd allowes US to have the means to defend ourselves from what our enemies are supporting with the Democrat partys current actions. This country is on the verge of needing all the arms we can get.