Posted on 03/23/2019 12:48:43 PM PDT by Sean_Anthony
Meaning of "militia" in the Second Amendment is not limited to a well-regulated, state militia; it is all the people who stand able and willing to bear arms to defend their liberty
What America's Founders intended in the Second AmendmentThe militia noted in the second amendment is a militia of all those able and willing to bear arms to defend their liberty.
Today, discussion of the Second Amendment begins with two claims: Liberal, gun-control advocates focus on A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, and argue that the right to bear arms only applies to those in a well-regulated militia. Conservatives emphasize the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
“Our colonies and country were founded by people who fled tyrannical governments that simply wouldnt let them live their certain Christian denomination wherever they were in europe.”
Not true for Jamestown. The first, and as Virginia, the largest colony of what became the United States.
our Founders intended all citizens able and willing to defend against enemies foreign and domestic, including the very much feared federal government they established going bonkers or seizing more power than the limited powers they so carefully enumerated to it.......(regrettably, the federal government did just that...as they feared so much..grabbing excessive powers while abrogating the individual rights of citizens....these unfortunate events only heighten the critical importance of Americans staying fully armed and at the ready...Plus, there is now the spectacle of millions of illegals invading USA...again, Americans must be ready to defend their homes and communities)
Unloaded and in a locked strong box when you’re out of the house.
I would say youre pretty much exactly right. People dont realize that what you describe is exactly what happened to the founding fathers. The British werent an invading force; everyone involved was British.
On of the missing perspectives in the RTKABA argument is the State Constitutions written about the same time or before the federal constitution. A few of them use different words and also, some of them are very clear that the RTKABA includes the right to use arms to defend oneself.
Jamestown was the socialist experiment that failed.
And put another way...
“A well balanced breakfast being necessary to the start of a healthy day, the right of the people to keep and eat food shall not be infringed.”
Who has the right? The well-balanced breakfast, or the people?
It’s really very simple to understand; unless the aim is to deceive the unthinking...
Oh, yeah! I like that and know just the Leftards to use it on...
“Jamestown was the socialist experiment that failed.”
Socialism? Jamestown in fact was a joint stock company, the Virginia Company, financed by investors in London who hoped for a return on their investment. The colonists were financially supported by the Virginia Company.
The colony didn’t fail but the Virginia Company went bankrupt in 1624 and the colony was reorganized as a royal colony ruled by the Crown.
Agreed 100 million percent. And, based on history, they ALL eventually become tyrannical. I'm such a purist that I even think that the right to self defense from crime, while certainly an inalienable right, is not really what the Second Amendment is about. It truly, really, really is about remaining free men, but only as a very last resort.
As if I need to rely on an Amendment in the Bill of Rights to allow me to do that.
[Nothing harder than having to fight for EACH AND EVERY HOUSE or block when invading.]
Or when having to oppress your own people.
Great post. No wonder the left has destroyed American History as a requirement to graduate FROM ELEMENTARY SCHOOL!
http://www.davekopel.org/2A/LawRev/american-revolution-against-british-gun-control.html
Above is an interesting article about the Powder Alarm where much of the language of the 2nd Amendment is also included. The British raided the local militia’s powder warehouse six months or so prior to Lexington/Concord. The local militia was British - and was primarily to be called upon to fight Indians iirc.
Anyway - so the people got together and decided to change it from a British militia to an “American” one. Wrote up new rules - but all the folks in the old one kept their same ranks and duties.
They also started training on a more regular basis.
I’ve read elsewhere that if the British Army had not taken the powder, we probably would have won the battle of Bunker Hill. (And “arms” included cannons).
True.
I would like to think a number of officers would step aside like the french soldiers did when the revolution started.
Then we could start chopping off heads :)
Start with talking heads!
It truly, really, really is about remaining free men, but only as a very last resort.
Its the Doomsday Provision of the Constitution to be used when all else has failed. That hasnt happened, yet. But we are at what Claire Wolfe once called the awkward stage.
L
Lexington and Concord.
All I need to Know.
Can I use that?
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.