Replies

I mean no offense to American Indians, but, when the 2nd Amendment was being considered, the new settlers living near the American frontier had constant fear in their hearts that a bunch of savages would attack them. The right to keep and bear arms was vital to their survival. For example, a group of law-abiding people could band together as a local militia, etc. to defend themselves and their families against a much larger force. I have always felt that the 2nd Amendment applied in ad hoc situations, whether the foe was marauding Indians or outlaws, as well in the larger sense many feel that it implies. As the West became more settled and the East became downright tranquil, some ambitious politicians began appealing to weak-minded and short-sighted people to ban weapons from private hands. Although some fell for this so-called "liberal" sophistry, fortunately judicial activists have succeeded in thwarting the guarantees in the Constitution regarding private weapons only partially, and only in some locales. I say this is fortunate because we as a Nation are again faced with the prospect of wild men in our midst who may strike anytime, anywhere, without warning: They are not wild Indians; they are Militant Islamists. While most Muslims are peaceful, a certain percentage is quite militant. I expect that they will arm themselves and strike mercilessly, and that they will likely attack those jurisdictions that have limited 2nd Amendment rights. They may be insane, but they aren't stupid. I think that they will attack where they will meet the least degree of unexpected resistance. It brings me no joy to think of liberals and those led astray by them being slaughtered wholesale, but that is the likely prospect. For myself, as soon as I can, I intend to move to a State where Concealed Carry is allowed, and I advocate that all exercise that right. For example, if all or most of the school teachers had been packing heat, the recent massacre at that school in Russia would not have happened. Do we have to have a massacre of that magnitude here before we wake up? The police and military personnel can't be everywhere, and generally their uniforms and official vehicles announce their presence. On the other hand, if a band of terrorists was unsure whether any citizen, anyplace was armed or not, they will be dissuaded. And, if not dissuaded, soon they will be dead.

In summary, I never agreed with the sophistry of the gun-grabbers, but now we must take a stand. We either have to run them out of town or ourselves go somewhere they have no power, because I believe that we are about to be attacked by merciless militant Muslims. I do not suffer fools gladly, especially those gun-grabbers who would allow me and mine to be slaughtered on their altar of gun control: The great majority of the American people, including most Muslims will do what is right and just. We cannot allow a small minority of Militant Muslims to run amok here like they just did in Russia. We must ban gun control and encourage responsible gun ownership and education so that most of the good people will be armed and ready when the militants strike. If we do, we can easily outgun them and save ourselves. Otherwise, we may find ourselves destroyed and the survivors enslaved.

I mean no offense to Englishmen, but when the Second Amendment was being considered, former Colonials had won a nation using skills and arms which they posessed.

The battle of Lexington and Concord started when the British troops were mobilizing with the objective of siezeing powder and shot.

The second amendment was written with the thought in mind that if government ever became tyrannical again (an armed citizenry is a deterrent), it could be overthrown again by an armed populace.

An alternative interpretation to the common one, one supported by dictionary definitions ca 1814, is that the Army (the Militia, as defined) would be well regulated (controlled) by an armed populace (the people) exercising that individual right. That control is necessary to keep secure a Free State (free nation), otherwise, the army might sieze control.

The debate over maintaining a standing army in the Federalist Papers seems to support this conclusion as well. Despite the absence of formal martial training, the overwhelming majority of individuals, armed, in defiance of a renegade army, would be capable of overcoming the military force, if need be, and thus a standing army might be maintained so long as the people were armed. The main purpose was the prevention of the reestablishment of tyranny.

Hunting and self/family protection against predators, raiders, and thieves of all ilk were understood.