Posted on 02/19/2018 7:50:38 AM PST by gopmike.com
How many people in this country have ACTUALLY read and UNDERSTAND the purpose of our 2nd Amendment??? Try reading the whole thing and understand why it was written. It is ONE sentence but Critically IMPORTANT to our liberty!
It wasn't written so we can hunt!!!
It was written to preserve our right to form a MILITIA to fight back against a tyrannical government.
I know it's not a likely scenario, but it is essential element of our freedom and liberty and the founding fathers knew it was critical to keep government in check.
It may not
(Excerpt) Read more at gopmike.com ...
Yep.
“The government has nuclear weapons. Should private citizens be allowed to own nuclear weapons?
And before you go off half cocked accusing me of all sorts of things, I’m just interested in your opinion”
Nuclear weapons exist to end wars or prevent wars between nations. Guns are to surgically pin point the specific people responsible for war or attempted subjugation.
Unfortunately or not, “...the right of THE PEOPLE to keep and bear arms...” is an inadequately defined series of words.
It is an unlikely event as long as the 2A stays the way it is.
you are correct.... the second amendment has nothing to do with hunting or in home defence... it was written to allow a nation to rise up against a government gone rogue..... with that in mind, any weapon that the military possesses we not only have a right but a duty to possess... that includes machine guns, automatic weapons, grenades, tanks, mortars and even aircraft and warships (if we can afford them).... it is an interesting piece of history that during the revolution our fledgling nation leased cannon and warships from private owners.....
It is defined by this claise, “A well regulated militia, being necessary for the security of a free state...”
A militia must be equipped with arms of military utility.
“Well regulated”, in the common parlance of the time the term was written into the Second Amendment, means “well trained.”
You can’t train a militia with sporting arms.
“You mean like the militias of the Southern States that tried to defy the tyrannical Federal government in 1860 to 1865?”
The volunteers from the Southern States faced off against the volunteers from the Northern States. Without the support of, and volunteers from, the Northern States, the Federal government couldn’t have done much of anything.
Without the 2nd Amendment, it becomes a very likely scenario.
Certainly. If you can afford it, and have no legal reason to be prohibited, M1 Abrams tanks, F22 Raptors, etc, etc. The only limit should be what you can afford. To say otherwise opens the door to the “sensible” gun control premise. What is sensible to those that would want the populace unarmed is a long way away from what I think is sensible (see above).
ok... i will play... if you are in the white house and the country has gone full revolution.... the masses are at the gates and you and your family are about to be killed or worse.... the only way out is a nuke.... would you use it, yes or no? if the answer i yes, then we have the right to possess nuclear weapons also...
> “...the right of THE PEOPLE to keep and bear arms...” is an inadequately defined series of words. <
I think that part of the 2A is rather clear. And I find it significant that the Founders put in “and bear arms”. Those arms were meant to be in every citizen’s hands, and not stored away in some armory somewhere.
For me anyway, the inadequately defined thing in the 2A is “well-regulated”. I take that to mean that the individual states can put reasonable limitations on the 2A, just as reasonable limitations can be put on the 1A (you cannot yell “fire” in a crowded theater, for example).
But then the fight starts over what a “reasonable” 2A limitation would be. I’d say it would be no bazookas, and things like that. But an ultra-liberal would say make illegal anything that uses gunpowder.
Not the Emperor.
Admiral Yamamoto.
“It was written to preserve our right to form a MILITIA to fight back against a tyrannical government.”
That’s enough, but it was actually created to do more than that.
1) The maintenance of standing armies to control civilian populations in peacetime was a cause of the Revolution. The 2nd A was designed to remove the excuse for US government to follow in Britain’s footsteps in maintaining standing armies. This cuts off the tyranny pipeline without fighting, and is consonant with the self-government the Revolution was fought for.
2) Armed individuals capable of defending themselves locally removes another reason for expanding government coercion — making conflict with government less likely.
3) Militias provide local self-defense when government cannot, due to inadequate resources or willful neglect. In 1800, the US had vast frontiers bounded by Native Americans who opposed being dispossessed, and foreign powers (France and GB) happy to leverage them. Meanwhile the US had a regular army of a few thousand spread across thousands of miles in an age of walking speed transport.
Currently a massive, widespread natural disaster or foreign invasion would completely overwhelm the resources of the few hundred thousand active duty troops stationed in the continental US.
4) Militias provide personnel with at least some training for times when the US needs to expand its regular forces quickly. This happened in almost all US conflicts, and via State National Guard units, still does.
My main point is that it’s not all about fighting AGAINST our government. Leftists like to think 2nd A defenders are just nuts who desire an insurrection.
> Admiral Yamamoto. <
Speaking of Yamamoto, he spent some time studying at Harvard (1919–1921). Some wag once remarked that if he had studied at the University of Georgia instead, he would have known better than to attack the United States.
Great post Chewbarkah! Did not know some of that!
The reason Yamamoto made that statement about rifles behind every blade of grass is BECAUSE when he went to Harvard, he actually met people in New England who, at that time, were well armed, too.
They used to vote strictly Republican up there.
How times have changed!
How pussified they have become in 100 years.
(Alumnus, not UGA, but GA Southern)
The main reason that it is highly unlikely that we will ever have to use our right to keep and bear arms against a tyrannical gov’t is because the 2A exists in our US Constitution.
(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.The militia is a subset of ANY populace. It forms by dint of able-bodied people existing.
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.