Posted on 03/01/2013 7:24:04 PM PST by HMS Surprise
What is the actual history and purpose of the Second Amendment? A growing number of gun control advocates insist that this key constitutional provision was not intended to protect an individual right of firearms ownership, but instead was intended to provide for the regulation of a government-controlled militia. People who espouse that view generally insist that the role of the militia is now carried out by the National Guard, or even by the police -- and that the "right of the people" referred to in the Second Amendment has nothing to do with private firearms ownership.
(Excerpt) Read more at youtube.com ...
The 2nd Amendment was to give the people a fighting chance to overthrow the government, should it become necessary (again.)
Stop arguing crime stats! Ultimately this argument is a trap that cannot withstand scutiny. The 2nd Amendment has NOTHING TO DO WITH CRIME. Watch the video! Harvard professor no less!
“Well-regulated,” in the context of the 1700s, meant well-equipped. You know: “genuine, regulation” [item of good use here].
True. The 2nd amendment is NOT about guns, it is about resistance. Firearms are incidental. Anything that is necessary for the people to maintain superiority over the government is not only essential it should be demanded. Otherwise the 2nd amendment makes no sense.
The right carries with it by necessary implication all of the other rights and privileges attendant to membership in the nobility ~ that includes the right to go to court to sue someone for damages ~ and if you win receive the assistance of the government in securing payment. That's the use of the king's arms ~ something commoners didn't have for thousands of years in most of the world.
When it comes to firearms that right was DISCOVERED in the mid 1500s at the conclusion of the Religious Wars in France. The Huguenot faction (the Protestants) refused to stack arms and took theirs home with them.
People who oppose the second amendment want to convert us all to stateless peasants. They are also bigoted against Protestantism.
The First and Third amendments are tightly linked to Protestant history BTW ~ the third is, in particular, written against the sort of authoritarian claim made by Louis XIV ~ George III was a wimp ~ he wasn't the target!
Quite frankly, Obama didn't come up with the anti-gun campaign ~ that has happened due to flaws in our immigration system ~ but Obama is such a remarkably stupid man he cannot comprehend the fundamentals of the right of self-defense and freedom of conscience.
it means the gub’mnt owes me some weapons suitable for mechanized infantry use ~
True. But establishing that meme is meaningless if there is no revival of the citizen’s militia in America. There is nothing to regulate, so what’s the point?
The operative word here is "free". The framers of the Constitution wanted the state (i.e., the country) to be free. This meant free from dangers from without, and from dangers from within, hence the guarantee that the people have the right to be armed.
This is not emphasized nearly enough.
I’ll tell you what is missing from the debate on the 2nd Amendment... ANY informed talk at all about the Constitution! No Republicans, no Democrats and certainly n one in the media care a whit what constitutional aspects the gun debate has.
Yes, but where is the militia? It doesn’t exist. So “well-regulated” etc. is meaningless. It’s like saying that we all still have the freedom of religion, but every church in America is gone.
The 2nd amendment is the Constitution. If you watch the video you will see the best exposition I have ever found on the 2nd. The professor nails it.
You are part of the militia. In the language of the founders, the "militia" was "all able-bodied men". If you are an able-bodied man and a citizen of the USA, you are a member of the militia.
Again, in their language, "well-regulated" translates to "well-equipped" -- as in "all able-bodied men" were expected to own a firearm.
Missing? Logic and reason
Sanity ?
Sanity ?
Of course, I understand but... saying it is merely pointing to a hypothetical, i.e. that all of these so-called “able-bodied men” qualify to be militia. That doesn’t mean anything. There is STILL NO MILITIA. When did you last muster with your neighbor and run drills? If never, you are just like everyone else. So I ask: Why do you think this knowledge of what should be somehow innoculates you from actually doing something?
Enemies of the state:
Sam Colt
Sam Walton
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.