Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

What Does The 2nd Amendment Mean?
Personal Liberty Digest ^ | January 24, 2013 | Bob Livingston

Posted on 01/24/2013 8:02:29 AM PST by Resettozero

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.—Amendment II

Some of the recent attacks on the 2nd Amendment and lawful gun owners by the gun grabbers have focused on the meaning of the words in the Amendment. Particularly, gun grabbers have zeroed in on what the Founding Fathers meant by the words “well regulated Militia.”

So what did the Founders mean when they penned and approved those words? As Thomas Jefferson suggested in a letter to William Johnson, “On every question of construction (of the Constitution) let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed.”

(Excerpt) Read more at personalliberty.com ...


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Government; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: banglist; guncontrol; militia; rkba; secondamendment; wellregulated; youwillnotdisarmus
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-66 next last
FYI
1 posted on 01/24/2013 8:02:31 AM PST by Resettozero
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Resettozero
The Second Amendment was devised in order to keep the government in a healthy state of fear of its citizens.

When there are no guns, the Leviathan is enabled to march towards total tyranny.

2 posted on 01/24/2013 8:09:02 AM PST by Slyfox (The key to Marxism is medicine - Vladimir Lenin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Resettozero
the security of a free State

A state where only the government has weapons is not a free state but is in fact a slave state!!!!

3 posted on 01/24/2013 8:09:18 AM PST by Don Corleone ("Oil the gun..eat the cannoli. Take it to the Mattress.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Resettozero
I see a great opportunity. We're missing the “well regulated militia”. It's time for us, “We The People,” to form it and “regulate” it.
4 posted on 01/24/2013 8:09:24 AM PST by ryan71
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Resettozero

http://www.constitution.org/rc/rat_decl-ny.htm


5 posted on 01/24/2013 8:13:13 AM PST by Sacajaweau
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Resettozero

FREEDOM FROM A CORRUPT GOVERNMENT. Like we have now.


6 posted on 01/24/2013 8:13:49 AM PST by Logical me
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ryan71
The Militia Act of 1792 further defines it as the whole people, particularly, “every able-bodied man” from age 18 to 45.

Shucks.
7 posted on 01/24/2013 8:14:18 AM PST by Resettozero
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: ryan71

The “well-regulated militia” thing is solely a STATE function. The individual’s rights, in addition to participation in a STATE function, ABOVE ALL and supreme to ALL are covered by the last part.....IOW it goes, “We the people”, the STATES (the rights we give them), and then the Federal Government (those rights not claimed by the STATES) delegated to the Federal Government.

As far as I’m concerned these United States are people, states, THEN Federal Government.


8 posted on 01/24/2013 8:15:37 AM PST by Gaffer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Resettozero
Post #5 shows the basis for the right to bear arms. NYS makes it very clear. Bottom line....our forefathers murdered the English language and the Constitution trying to write a very broad framework.

One thing is very clear. The Bill of Rights pertains to each and everyone of us as individuals.

9 posted on 01/24/2013 8:16:50 AM PST by Sacajaweau
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sacajaweau
Done in Convention at Poughkeepsie in the County of Dutchess in the State of New York the twenty sixth day of July in the year of our Lord One thousand Seven hundred and Eighty eight.
By Order of the Convention. GEO: CLINTON President


I love the legalese of that time.
10 posted on 01/24/2013 8:17:37 AM PST by Resettozero
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: ryan71; Resettozero

Various wordings of the Second Amendment were tried during its development. The end result *purposefully* leaves out any enumeration of reasons why an individual has the right to keep and bear Arms. Any reason *why* an individual may or may not keep and bear Arms, was left to the states and the people thereof, to settle among themselves.

The only enumeration in the Second Amendment focuses on what to do about a group of men under Arms - what is to happen when individuals who bear military grade Arms are in a group, and they *are* capable of exercising martial power. What *then,* was to become of that power?

The answer was, that both the states and the federal government would rely upon *the group* being formally mustered, well-regulated, well trained to Arms, well discplined, and answerable to civilian authority.

Both the states and the federal government sought unity of function and preparedness of the militia of each state. The state militiae should be “well trained to Arms” and be capable of, and mindful of, lawfully exercising martial power and respecting lawful civilian authority.

In the old days up to around WW-I times and for a while thereafter, there was a tradition of local militia drilling on the common, the town green, or the county fairgrounds. It gave people an opportunity to remain somewhat familiar with military duty; it helped to keep them from becoming too rusty. It demonstrated the proper practices and discipline *for all to see.*

It is a shame that most communities and counties and states got out of that practice.

All the uses of weapons, firearm or not, for non-military purposes, were left to be decided by the states and their people.

Again, there would be no condition within the Second Amendment, by which you do, or do not, have the right to keep and bear Arms; because, the Founding Fathers correctly anticipated that any such enumerated condition might be used as grounds for an individual to either be forced to bear Arms or be stripped of their Arms.


11 posted on 01/24/2013 8:19:37 AM PST by First_Salute (May God save our democratic-republican government, from a government by judiciary.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Resettozero

It really hasn’t changed.


12 posted on 01/24/2013 8:20:26 AM PST by Sacajaweau
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: First_Salute

Your post is as good or better than the one I posted to start this thread. Thank you.


13 posted on 01/24/2013 8:22:52 AM PST by Resettozero
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Resettozero

Not being real big on details in history, I don’t remember reading about the government(s) “issuing” weapons to the troops so the troops had to already own them, is that right?


14 posted on 01/24/2013 8:24:28 AM PST by vet7279
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Resettozero
Particularly, gun grabbers have zeroed in on what the Founding Fathers meant by the words “well regulated Militia.”

It doesn't matter. The second part is all that matters...We The People shall not be denied our right to keep and bear arms to afford us protection against a well regulated militia.

15 posted on 01/24/2013 8:24:55 AM PST by Bloody Sam Roberts (Here once the embattled farmers stood... And fired the shot heard round the world.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Resettozero
All the original states were instructed to draw up their State Constitution PRIOR to the Federal Constitution. They can be found at the Avalon Project. They also contain rights.

The Federal Constitution extends the basic Rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights rights to future States and territiories or to those states where these basics are not mentioned.

16 posted on 01/24/2013 8:25:16 AM PST by Sacajaweau
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Resettozero
I've been trying to stay out of court and such places. I suppose I was mostly referring to this way of dating documents:

...in the year of our Lord One thousand Seven hundred and Eighty eight.

Are you certain that is still the way it is done? I hope so.
17 posted on 01/24/2013 8:27:14 AM PST by Resettozero
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Resettozero

Note the last few words. EMPHATICALLY
18 posted on 01/24/2013 8:27:14 AM PST by onedoug
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sacajaweau
(Correction: This was incompetently posted to myself instead of you.)

I've been trying to stay out of court and such places. I suppose I was mostly referring to this way of dating documents:

...in the year of our Lord One thousand Seven hundred and Eighty eight.

Are you certain that is still the way it is done? I hope so.
19 posted on 01/24/2013 8:43:28 AM PST by Resettozero
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Resettozero
From Federalist 46 by James Madison:

Extravagant as the supposition is, let it however be made. Let a regular army, fully equal to the resources of the country, be formed; and let it be entirely at the devotion of the federal government; still it would not be going too far to say, that the State governments, with the people on their side, would be able to repel the danger. The highest number to which, according to the best computation, a standing army can be carried in any country, does not exceed one hundredth part of the whole number of souls; or one twenty-fifth part of the number able to bear arms. This proportion would not yield, in the United States, an army of more than twenty-five or thirty thousand men. To these would be opposed a militia amounting to near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands, officered by men chosen from among themselves, fighting for their common liberties, and united and conducted by governments possessing their affections and confidence. It may well be doubted, whether a militia thus circumstanced could ever be conquered by such a proportion of regular troops. Those who are best acquainted with the last successful resistance of this country against the British arms, will be most inclined to deny the possibility of it. Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of. Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms. And it is not certain, that with this aid alone they would not be able to shake off their yokes. But were the people to possess the additional advantages of local governments chosen by themselves, who could collect the national will and direct the national force, and of officers appointed out of the militia, by these governments, and attached both to them and to the militia, it may be affirmed with the greatest assurance, that the throne of every tyranny in Europe would be speedily overturned in spite of the legions which surround it.

The Federalist Papers are available at: http://avalon.law.yale.edu/subject_menus/fed.asp

Note, the militia is opposed to the standing army.

Also note, "the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation"

"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." - Jefferson


The militia is divided into two groups: the Reserve Militia, defined as all able-bodied men between 18 and 45, and the Organized Militia, defined as state units receiving federal support.

The Militia Act of 1903, also known as the Dick Act, repealed The Militia Act of 1792.

This Act is printed in the Statutes at Large, Volume 32, on page 775, available at: http://www.constitution.org/uslaw/sal/032_statutes_at_large.pdf

Here is the relevant part:

To promote the efficiency of the militia, and for other purposes.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the militia shall consist of every able-bodied male citizen of the respective States, Territories, and the District of Columbia, and every able-bodied male of foreign birth who has declared his intention to become a citizen, who is more than eighteen and less than forty-five years of age, and shall be divided into two classes—the organized militia, to be known as the National Guard of the State, Territory, or District of Columbia, or by such other designations as may be given them by the laws of the respective States or Territories, and the remainder to be known as the Reserve Militia.

Further amendments to this Act have not modified this basic structure.

20 posted on 01/24/2013 8:43:28 AM PST by Ray76 (Do you reject Obama? And all his works? And all his empty promises?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sacajaweau

Unfortunately, any appeal to “original intent” is dismissed out of hand by leftists. One of the tenets of their ideology is that the determinations of the elite that are alive today supercede all previous determinations in history.


21 posted on 01/24/2013 8:47:50 AM PST by MrB (The difference between a Humanist and a Satanist - the latter admits whom he's working for)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Resettozero
The time has come and passed where these types of arguments are worth the effort. As push comes closer to shove, should we even be engaging our enemies in their dishonest asterisk filled areas of strength ? Is it not implied by even having this discussion with them that we will disarm if they can win a debate ? A court ruling ?

There is no debate left to win that will prevent disarmament attempts, as we are not dealing with honorable people with a different political point of view. We are dealing with a marxist cabal intent on OUR VERY DEATHS.

I will not disarm and therefore these discussions are irrelevant.

We are now under full blown psychological warfare attack, and this type of talk is the only thing of any effect in this environment.

STICK TO YOUR GUNS

SGT USMC

22 posted on 01/24/2013 8:47:58 AM PST by SENTINEL (Kneel down to God. Stand up to tyrants. STICK TO YOUR GUNS !)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Ray76

My shapely young wife and I homeschooled our two before it was a cool thing to do. Those glorious days are past for us but one of the benefits of our homeschooling remains: We’ve got the American history books and printed copies of many documents that one day may be unavailable on the Internet.


23 posted on 01/24/2013 8:50:48 AM PST by Resettozero
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Resettozero

Can you imagine if the his highness and NY gov kkkuomo said “We’re not abotu takign away your right to free speech, However, if tyou fail to register yourself, or if you refuse to take a mental health exam to determien your eligibility to speak freely, you will no logner be allowed to speak freely in public or in NY or in Washinton or wherever we determine’?

Yet that is eactly what htey are doign with hte second amendment and noone apparently cares enough to stop them- the peopel howeveer woudl be screaming bloody murder if they tried that with the freedom of speech- liberal groups would be all up in arms over the ‘aggregious violations to the constitution’

The left is incapable of feelign shame


24 posted on 01/24/2013 8:50:58 AM PST by CottShop (Scientific belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: CottShop

Now, THAT post does like a lot like Olde English!


25 posted on 01/24/2013 8:54:35 AM PST by Resettozero
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Resettozero

It means “don’t f*** with me.”


26 posted on 01/24/2013 8:56:28 AM PST by Lurker (Violence is rarely the answer. But when it is it is the only answer.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Resettozero

Excellent.

Hopefully the day does not come when these books must be read in secret.

Be prepared: photograph the pages and load the photos onto memory sticks, just in case that day does come and you need to pass them on to patriots.

Freedom shall not perish.


27 posted on 01/24/2013 8:56:28 AM PST by Ray76 (Do you reject Obama? And all his works? And all his empty promises?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: SENTINEL

Semper Fi, Do or Die.

Got your six.


28 posted on 01/24/2013 8:57:34 AM PST by NTHockey (Rules of engagement #1: Take no prisoners)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: NTHockey

Ooh Rah.


29 posted on 01/24/2013 9:01:12 AM PST by SENTINEL (Kneel down to God. Stand up to tyrants. STICK TO YOUR GUNS !)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Resettozero

In the 1700’s, the words “well-regulated” meant well trained.


30 posted on 01/24/2013 9:01:38 AM PST by july4thfreedomfoundation (November 6, 2012.....A day that will live in infamy!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Ray76
Be prepared: photograph the pages and load the photos onto memory sticks, just in case that day does come and you need to pass them on to patriots.

Now that sounds like a worthwhile project for someone! As for our house, we did what we could to instill these ideas inside each member of the family. Hopefully, the guy (became an Eagle Scout) and the gal we homeschooled carry these things with them. So far, so good.
31 posted on 01/24/2013 9:02:39 AM PST by Resettozero
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Resettozero

Visions of Fahrenheit 451... each person (subversive) memorized a book since books had been outlawed.


32 posted on 01/24/2013 9:06:27 AM PST by Ray76 (Do you reject Obama? And all his works? And all his empty promises?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Resettozero
It does not say that the RKBA shall be institutionalized in a well ordered state militia. It says that 'A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State," setting up the reason that the RKBA "shall not be infringed." The wording is absolute. Every law that requires registration or makes it difficult or illegal for ANYONE to keep and bear arms (ARMS, undefined) is UNCONSTITUTIONAL. That's any arms, brass knuckles, muskets, Bushmasters, hand grenades, F-16s- ANY arms.

The liberals and many conservatives gasp in horror at this idea- there MUST be some limits. Well, there are- the market. How many of us can afford an H-bomb?

And liberals and many conservatives gasp- But felons shouldn't be allowed t have guns! and crazy people! Well those folks are barred by UNConstitutional laws already. How have those laws worked out? It is already Constitutionally illegal for these people, or any people (except maybe, members of Congress) to do the things we fear they might do if they have arms or if they use other sorts of implements or their bare hands or pens, for that matter.

This is where Hannity and other talk show guys get it wrong and hand the argument over to the gun banners. If you admit of some limits, sensible limits in Hannity's own head, then you have to draw the line somewhere and such lines have always proved easy to move or they get all squiggly and broken up. It is harder to defend an arbitrary line than it is to defend an absolute principle, which is what is written into the actual 2nd Amendment. When you draw arbitrary lines you become Boehner. Lines are always negotiable.

33 posted on 01/24/2013 9:08:00 AM PST by arthurus (Read Hazlitt's Economics In One Lesson ONLINE www.fee.org/library/books/economics-in-one-lesson)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Resettozero

Allow me to Repost from an older Thread:

Penn and Teller did an episode of their Showtime “Bullshit” Show on the Second Amendment.

They even explained how the sentence structure and how the Amendment was worded did NOT mean that The People had to be part of an organized Militia, which is how Liberals argue against Individual Gun Ownership.

Link below to a small clip, and there is a bit of graphic language, which I always expect from Penn.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EQkM2qhJjkw


34 posted on 01/24/2013 9:09:15 AM PST by Kickass Conservative (I only Fear a Government that doesn't Fear me.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Gaffer
The “well-regulated militia” thing is solely a STATE function. Wrong. The wording does not imply of that interpretation at all. A militia CAN be a state function but was not so defined at the time. The militia is all adult males excepting old men. THAT is how it was formally defined in law. In use the militia was volunteers who brought their own arms and coordinated with the national army or with state forces or on their own. How folks choose to define "militia" now is not relevant to the Constitution.
35 posted on 01/24/2013 9:16:09 AM PST by arthurus (Read Hazlitt's Economics In One Lesson ONLINE www.fee.org/library/books/economics-in-one-lesson)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: arthurus

I agree about the relevancy of what militia has to do with the basic individual’s rights has to to with owning a gun. However, your interpretation of the forematter is different from my interpretation. Your definitions are interpretations as are mine. I choose to believe We The People, STATES, and then Federal Government (if no objections are present from the prior).


36 posted on 01/24/2013 9:20:09 AM PST by Gaffer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: Resettozero

It means “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” Pretty darned clear.

The predatory “militia” stuff either means everyone expected to fight for their nation has a right to no less that full military weaponry (as they may not have a source of it once combat commences), or that having a standing army (which the Founding Fathers were reluctant to authorize) did not in any way justify disarming the people.

Either way, the declaratory clause is crystal clear. It’s only not clear to those who WANT to throw mud on it.


37 posted on 01/24/2013 9:20:18 AM PST by ctdonath2 (End of debate. Your move.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: arthurus

You got it!


38 posted on 01/24/2013 9:27:38 AM PST by Ray76 (Do you reject Obama? And all his works? And all his empty promises?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: Resettozero

Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story

United States Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story (1779-1845) was a famous jurist, and his Commentaries was a very influential treatise on United States

Some background information on Justice Story

See: http://www.belcherfoundation.org/joseph_story_on_church_and_state.htm

United States Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story (1779-1845) was a famous jurist, and his Commentaries was a very influential treatise on United States constitutional law. Story, first a Jeffersonian Republican and then (following his appointment to the Supreme Court of the United States by President James Madison), a Federalist, was one of the United States' most influential Supreme Court justices. His tenure on the Supreme Court spanned three decades, from 1811 to 1845. At the beginning of the twentieth century, Story was elected to the Hall of Fame. His views on the Constitution of the United States are still widely respected.

Justice Joseph Story's first wife, Mary Lynde Fitch Oliver (1781-1805), whom he married on December 9, 1804, was a descendant of Governor Jonathan Belcher's sister Elizabeth Belcher Oliver (1678-1736).

4th sentence of § 1890.

"The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has been justly considered as the palladium of the liberties of a republic." Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story.

See: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1088728

See Also: http://home.comcast.net/~dsmjd/tux/dsmjd/rkba/story.htm

One of the most influential early commentators on the U.S. Constitution was Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story. In his Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States, vol. 3 at pp. 746-747 (1833), he has the following to say about the Second Amendment:

"§ 1889. The next amendment is "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.

"§ 1890. The importance of this article will scarcely be doubted by any persons, who have duly reflected upon the subject. The militia is the natural defence of a free country against sudden foreign invasions, domestic insurrections, and domestic usurpations of power by rulers. It is against sound policy for a free people to keep up large military establishments and standing armies in time of [st]anding armies in time of peace, both from the enormous expenses, with which they are attended, and the facilee means, which they afford to ambitious and unprincipled rulers, to subvert the government, or trample upon the rights of the people. The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them. [FN1] And yet, thought this truth would seem so clear, and the importance of a well regulated militia would seem so undeniable, it cannot be disguised, that among the American people there is a growing indifference to any system of militia discipline, and a strong disposition, from a sense of its burthens, to be rid of all regulations. How is it practicable to keep the people duly armed without some organization, it is difficult to see. There is certainly no small danger, that indifference may lead to disgust, and disgust to contempt; and thus gradually undermine all the protection intended by this clause of our national bill of rights. [FN2]

Footnotes:

[FN1]: 1 Tucker's Black. Comm. App.300; Rawle on Const. ch.10, p.125; 2 Lloyd's Debates, 219,220.

[FN2]: It would be well for Americans to reflect upon the passage in Tacitus, (Hist.IV ch.74): "Nam neque quies sine armis, neque arma sine stipendis, neque stipendia tributis, haberi queunt." Is there any escape from a large standing army, but in a well disciplined militia? There is much wholesome instruction on this subject in 1. Black.Comm. ch.13, p.408 to 417.

[FN3]: 5 Cobbett's Parl. Hist. p.110; 1 Black.Comm. 143, 144.

And now some commentary from the late 20th Century:

Justice Story's passage on the Second Amendment supports the proposition that the phrase "well regulated" militia does not mean regulated as not mean regulated as we, citizens living under the omnipresent regulation of the post-New Deal federal government understand "regulation." Instead, "well regulated" in this context, means "properly functioning" and "uniformly equipped." Note how Justice Story laments Jacksonian America's growing indifference and hostility to maintaining a well regulated militia -- not on political or philosophical grounds, but rather because Americans were getting lazy! In fact, I'd say he [Justice Story] was prescient, in respect to the last sentence of § 1890. As for § 1891, history repeats itself, as we in the US have allowed our RKBA [Right to Keep and Bear Arms] to become undermined under various pretenses, such as "the war on crime," or the specious argument that of all rights of "the people" enumerated in the Bill of Rights, the Second Amendment alone applies to states, not individuals.

Definition of palladium: noun Chemistry .

A rare metallic element of the platinum group, silver-white, ductile and malleable, harder and fusing more readily than platinum: used chiefly as a catalyst and in dental and other alloys. Symbol: Pd; atomic weight: 106.4; atomic number: 46; specific gravity: 12 at 20°C.the people

39 posted on 01/24/2013 9:36:23 AM PST by Stanwood_Dave ("Testilying." Cop's don't lie, they just Testily{ing} as taught in their respected Police Academy.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Resettozero

http://www.politicsdaily.com/2010/04/25/the-year-of-our-lord-christian-phrase-still-used-on-state-docum/


40 posted on 01/24/2013 9:37:47 AM PST by Sacajaweau
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Resettozero
Instead of trying to interpret or guess the meaning of the Second Amendment, just ask families who have been here since the 1600`s.

They know all about bearing arms. Just go through the genealogical websites and you can see the families there who have borne arms for almost 400 years.

Gimme a break- the Second Amendment is not written on paper in ink- It is written on the bloodied battlefields of our forefathers.

41 posted on 01/24/2013 9:40:55 AM PST by bunkerhill7 (The Second Amendment has no limits on firepower.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: CottShop
Why, exactly right! As you know, words CAN kill. I mean, what's to stop someone from shouting 'FIRE!' in a crowded theatre.. There you go again, using logic...
42 posted on 01/24/2013 9:44:05 AM PST by i_robot73
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Stanwood_Dave
palladium: noun Chemistry...ductile and malleable, harder and fusing more readily than platinum: used chiefly as a catalyst...in dental and other alloys.

Good word. Haven't used it yet but will try.
43 posted on 01/24/2013 9:44:05 AM PST by Resettozero
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: Sacajaweau

Excellent news to me. Good to see He still gets passing mention by our government, albeit insincere.


44 posted on 01/24/2013 9:46:40 AM PST by Resettozero
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: Kickass Conservative

I really like this simple but forceful lesson in History. Don’t remember seeing it before. Love it, especially the smacks with the pointer! Thank you.


45 posted on 01/24/2013 9:53:48 AM PST by Resettozero
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: i_robot73

Actually you can shout “FIRE!” in a crowded theater. If there is no cause for your action you will be held accountable for any damage, injuries, or deaths that result from your action.

The RKBA has similar responsibilities. If there is no cause for your action you will be held accountable for any damage, injuries, or deaths that result from your action.


46 posted on 01/24/2013 9:54:01 AM PST by Ray76 (Do you reject Obama? And all his works? And all his empty promises?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: Resettozero

Among many grand things, it probably also means I die at my front door when they come for my gun(s).


47 posted on 01/24/2013 10:30:01 AM PST by tbpiper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Ray76
Actually you can shout “FIRE!” in a crowded theater. If there is no cause for your action you will be held accountable for any damage, injuries, or deaths that result from your action.

I have used this EXACT same example on many a liberal! There is absolutely NO LAW that says you cannot yell fire in a crowded theater - if there was such a law then it would be illegal for you to warn others who were trapped in an actual theater fire.

Same thing on the RKBA - there is no reason to not allow felons to protect themselves. Hell, up until the early 1900's, in Texas, all prisoners were released from prison with $10, a horse, a rifle and 10 rounds! Because it was unthinkable to put a man out of prison in the middle of nowhere without giving him a basic package to survive.

If the person is SO dangerous that you cannot trust them outside of prison to act as a responsible citizen, then they should still be in prison! Otherwise, let them get on with their lives; including voting and gun ownership! If they return to a life of crime, then put them back in jail - duh!

I have a family member who, at a young age, under a drug, alcohol and girlfriend induced stupor attempted armed robbery. He spent six years in prison. After his departure from prison, he has NEVER had a single incident with the law (other than the occasional traffic ticket).

After getting out, he got married, had two children (one of which is in the Air Force), he started a construction business, bought 24 acres of land and built his home/workshop from ground up. He is member of his local church, a pillar of his community and volunteers to help the elderly keep their homes in good repair!

This man who means so much to those around him and his community cannot vote, nor LEGALLY protect his wife and children! How does that benefit society? How does that benefit him? If we have an "...unalienable right to life..." then how can the government remove the best means to ENSURE this said "unalienable right?"
48 posted on 01/24/2013 10:33:29 AM PST by ExTxMarine (PRAYER: It's the only HOPE for real CHANGE in America!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: ExTxMarine

Nice post. Wish you could influence my two Dem ex-Marines friends who give me grief over practically everything I believe, I still like their companionship and still am praying.


49 posted on 01/24/2013 10:39:53 AM PST by Resettozero
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: SENTINEL

“I will not disarm and therefore these discussions are irrelevant.”

I stand with you, for Liberty.

“We mutually pledge to each other, our Lives, our Fortunes and our Sacred Honor” (Declaration of Independence).


50 posted on 01/24/2013 10:41:44 AM PST by Snow Eagle ("... Against all enemies, foreign AND DOMESTIC")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-66 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson