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

Skip to comments.

Second Amendment Reform?

Posted on 10/08/2005 11:23:32 AM PDT by Whyarentlibsred

Amendment II: 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.

Upon reading the above, it is clear to me that the first part of the Second Amendment “A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state,” no longer applies to the situation in America today and should be changed to better reflect valid reasons for allowing citizens to keep guns in the United States. While things may have been different in the 1700s, the days when ordinary citizens armed with light weapons (rifles and handguns) can assemble and defeat a professional military are long over. There is now a vast disparity between the amount of firepower that the average gun owner on one side, and the U.S. military on the other, could bring to a hypothetical fight, and historically even the successful guerilla movements that drove away professional armies possessed more weapons than just long arms. For example, the Afghan guerillas who defeated the Soviets possessed recoilless rifles, RPGs, and Stinger SAMs, all weapons that are banned by law from U.S. citizens today. Besides, the National Guard already fulfills the function of a State Militia, and the existence of the National Guard has almost nothing to do with guaranteeing a citizens right to bear arms. Because of these reasons, it is clear that using a well-regulated militia to defend the state as a reason to allow people to keep guns is outdated.

A much better reason to allow people to keep guns is so they can defend themselves from criminals, as demonstrated in the wake of Hurricane Katrina. After Katrina, it wasn’t the government people were worried about, it was armed gangs of their fellow American citizens looting and raping that were a threat to them. The government has enough checks and balances in place to take care of itself; if some Commie dictator did win the presidency I can’t see the mainly conservative military following any orders to disarm the people or send all conservatives to reeducation camps. However, when it comes to defending his family from the ravages of his fellow citizens, a man has no choice but to rely on his own weapons. The police won’t always be there for you, but as long as concealed carry is legal, your gun will be. I think the Second Amendment should be changed to reflect this fact, that the security of the state is up to the military, but personal security is up to the nation’s individual citizens. I think a better Second Amendment would read “An individual’s ability for self-protection being necessary to a secure society, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” Sure, the original intent of the founders may have been to allow citizens to form militia, and to protect against the government, but I think this bit of Constitutional reconstruction to reflect the reality that fellow citizens are more of a threat than the government ever will be is justified.


TOPICS: Philosophy
KEYWORDS: banglist; constitutionlist; govwatch
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-136 next last
Anybody agree, or is the government really a bigger threat than social criminals?
1 posted on 10/08/2005 11:23:33 AM PDT by Whyarentlibsred
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Whyarentlibsred
Back when the Second Amendment was authored, the weapons that the civilians had were considered assault rifles.

And if you honestly believe that the Second Amendment isn't mean to keep governments in line, then perhaps you'd care to explain why the first move of every tyranny is to disarm the civilian populace?

Bottom line: "the People" in the Second Amendment means "the People."

Deal with it.

2 posted on 10/08/2005 11:25:52 AM PDT by Prime Choice (E=mc^3. Don't drink and derive.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Whyarentlibsred
Also...maybe if Liberals would stop insisting that criminals be treated like ordinary citizens, and stopped treating ordinary citizens like criminals, we wouldn't have half the problems we do today.

And as an aside...welcome to FR. Enjoy your stay.

3 posted on 10/08/2005 11:26:55 AM PDT by Prime Choice (E=mc^3. Don't drink and derive.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Whyarentlibsred; Admin Moderator

Welcome to FR. OK if we keep an eye on you for a bit?

The Second Amendment is fine the way it is.


4 posted on 10/08/2005 11:27:28 AM PDT by ElkGroveDan (California bashers will be called out)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Whyarentlibsred
The purpose of the Second Amendment is to ensure the ability of a free people to kill the government, should it become tyrannical.

Self-defense is a subset of that.

5 posted on 10/08/2005 11:28:25 AM PDT by Hank Rearden (Never allow anyone who could only get a government job attempt to tell you how to run your life.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Whyarentlibsred
While things may have been different in the 1700s, the days when ordinary citizens armed with light weapons (rifles and handguns) can assemble and defeat a professional military are long over.

What's happened between the Vietnam War and today in terms of military science?

6 posted on 10/08/2005 11:28:58 AM PDT by SteveH (First they ignore you. Then they laugh at you. Then they fight you. Then you win.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Prime Choice

"And if you honestly believe that the Second Amendment isn't mean to keep governments in line, then perhaps you'd care to explain why the first move of every tyranny is to disarm the civilian populace?"

In fact, New Orleans comes to mind.


7 posted on 10/08/2005 11:29:09 AM PDT by gondramB (Conservatism is a positive doctrine. Reactionaryism is a negative doctrine.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: ElkGroveDan
The Second Amendment is fine the way it is.

Actually, I can think of one improvement on the Second Amendment...that the phrase "shall not be infringed" be beaten into every congresscritter who thinks that it's okay to sacrifice liberty in the name of liberalism.

8 posted on 10/08/2005 11:29:28 AM PDT by Prime Choice (E=mc^3. Don't drink and derive.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: gondramB
Indeed. Leftists are incredibly opportunistic when it comes to disarming law-abiding citizens.

But watch them bitch & moan whenever Bush brings up 9/11. Then it's "political opportunism"!

9 posted on 10/08/2005 11:30:38 AM PDT by Prime Choice (E=mc^3. Don't drink and derive.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Whyarentlibsred
The Second Amendment does not need to be changed. Politicians need to be changed.
10 posted on 10/08/2005 11:30:51 AM PDT by GregoTX (The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Comment #11 Removed by Moderator

To: Whyarentlibsred

Other people are always a threat. Personally I favor the government arming the people with the latest and greatest of weapons.


12 posted on 10/08/2005 11:33:23 AM PDT by muawiyah (/ hey coach do I gotta' put in that "/sarcasm " thing again? How'bout a double sarcasm for this one)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Prime Choice; Whyarentlibsred
And as an aside...welcome to FR. Enjoy your stay.

And careful not to make any sharp moves. The kitties have been kinda hair-trigger lately.


13 posted on 10/08/2005 11:33:24 AM PDT by ElkGroveDan (California bashers will be called out)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: AMERIKA

* Quotes from Thomas Jefferson, the author of The Declaration of Independence:
"What country can preserve its liberties if its rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms."

--Thomas Jefferson to William Stephens Smith, 1787.

"A strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species of exercises, I advise the gun. While this gives moderate exercise to the body, it gives boldness, enterprise and independence to the mind. Games played with the ball, and others of that nature, are too violent for the body and stamp no character on the mind. Let your gun therefore be your constant companion of your walks."

--Thomas Jefferson to Peter Carr, 1785.

"The constitutions of most of our States assert that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves in all cases to which they think themselves competent (as in electing their functionaries executive and legislative, and deciding by a jury of themselves in all judiciary cases in which any fact is involved), or they may act by representatives, freely and equally chosen; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed; that they are entitled to freedom of person, freedom of religion, freedom of property, and freedom of the press."
--Thomas Jefferson to John Cartwright, 1824. (57)(58)(59)

Pretty much invalidates the "militia only should own firearms" set wouldn't you think.

They way I see it, the second amendment tries to guarantee the right to protect our families with firearms or what ever means possible which is in actually a God given right long before there was a Constitution.


14 posted on 10/08/2005 11:35:30 AM PDT by AMERIKA (<-----Click here for "What is Racism")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Whyarentlibsred
The only reason that we have a 1st Amendment is because we have a @nd Amendment to back it up. The day that US citizens are no longer have a 2nd Amendment right to keep and maintain their own weapons is the day that all of the other Amendments as well as the Constitution are no longer protected.
15 posted on 10/08/2005 11:35:52 AM PDT by markedman (Shellbacks Rule! Hail Davey Jones! Hail King Neptune!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Prime Choice

how about tacking on "under penalty of being tarred and feathered and removed from office" right after "shall not be infringed".


16 posted on 10/08/2005 11:43:19 AM PDT by flashbunny (Suggested New RNC Slogan: "The Republican Party: Who else you gonna vote for?")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Whyarentlibsred
Posse Comitatus prevents using the military against U.S. citizens.

Besides, if there ever was a revolution roughly 10% of the 80 million gun owners in this country would be sufficient to prevent the feds from doing something we don't like (like say disarming us).

17 posted on 10/08/2005 11:44:03 AM PDT by Mogollon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: markedman
The Second Amendment needs to be Modified????
One of the Founding Fathers Gifts was our Constitution which was written in a rigid form with the ability to add Amendments is agreed to by Congress and the States. Since the creation of this country, this rigidity and difficulty in adding amendments has not only kept us from having leaders assume complete control of our lives, but has also prevented fringe groups from changing it using the popular culture of today.
The whole problem today is the Federal Court system was in the hands of liberals so long that they failed to do their constitutional duty, which is to declare a law unconstitutional when it infringes on the Constitution as written.
18 posted on 10/08/2005 11:45:14 AM PDT by Wooly
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Wooly
"The whole problem today is the Federal Court system was in the hands of liberals so long that they failed to do their constitutional duty, which is to declare a law unconstitutional when it infringes on the Constitution as written."

Amen. The 2nd Amendment _needs_ to be modified about as much as the Star Spangled Banner. Any attempt to amend the 2nd Amendment should be viewed as an assault on the soverignty of the people of the United States and dealt with accordingly.

I mean if the 2nd Amendment was not that important to the founders than wouldn't it have been something like number 9 or 10? But its not, its the 2nd Amendment - right after the guarantee of the right of the people to worship how they please and speak as the wish.

I honestly believe that the movements afoot to modify the 2nd Amendment is so that they can alos modify the 1st Amendment to do away with the right of the people to believe in God.

Be wary of anyone who wishes to Amend the Constitution and its amendments unless it is to expand freedoms.
19 posted on 10/08/2005 11:52:37 AM PDT by markedman (Shellbacks Rule! Hail Davey Jones! Hail King Neptune!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Whyarentlibsred
The Dems would like to modify the 2nd am to be about deer hunting, but it's not. Clearly the right to defend one's home and family against predators is part of the reason that good people should be armed.

However, the basic intent of the 2nd am is to restrain and discourage any tyrannical government. Whether that be a Bush tyrannical government or a Clinton tyrannican government. And never discount the deterrent effect of millions of deer rifles against a superior force; one has only to look back at the Warsaw ghettos to see that resistance is NOT futile.

Now really, I don't foresee any US citizens ever having to fight against a tyrannical government. But the reason we won't have to, is because of the 2nd am. Otherwise that fight could come as soon as 2008.

20 posted on 10/08/2005 11:58:03 AM PDT by Sender (Team Infidel USA)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Whyarentlibsred
No opening up Forrest Gump's Mama's box of chocolates for me, the constitution has worked well, more or less to date.
21 posted on 10/08/2005 11:58:16 AM PDT by Ursus arctos horribilis ("It is better to die on your feet than to live on your knees!" Emiliano Zapata 1879-1919)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Whyarentlibsred

I'd rather go the other way; that is, have the government issue light machine guns, grenade launchers/rpgs, "assault" rifles, etc. to law abiding citizens. Of course, there should be "reasonable" regulation: the only reasonable regulation I can think of is that it should be against the law to fire these weapons in town except in defense of life or to stop a life-threatening crime in progress.


22 posted on 10/08/2005 11:58:55 AM PDT by sailor4321
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Whyarentlibsred
What Good is a Handgun Against an Army? - by Mike Vanderboegh.
23 posted on 10/08/2005 12:03:13 PM PDT by DuncanWaring (The Lord uses the good ones; the bad ones use the Lord.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Whyarentlibsred

The Second Amendment is just fine as is, I have no problem understanding it. Do you?


24 posted on 10/08/2005 12:08:44 PM PDT by SWAMPSNIPER (LET ME DIE ON MY FEET IN MY SWAMP, ALEX KOZINSKI FOR SCOTUS)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Prime Choice

Most certainly do agree. Give me a .22 and a full barrel and I get anything our modern military has at it's disposal.
And if I can't-it wouldn't matter anyway.I would rather die trying than live a freakin' slave.We have enough trouble with the "merepoliticians" (including htose who sit in black robes) that cannot recognize the clear and unambiguous language of the Constitution as written anyhow.
I see no reason to screw around changing what works.Those who want to change it leave me wondering WHY? And the logic behind this puff piece is severely lacking.


25 posted on 10/08/2005 12:18:31 PM PDT by StonyBurk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Whyarentlibsred
While things may have been different in the 1700s, the days when ordinary citizens armed with light weapons (rifles and handguns) can assemble and defeat a professional military are long over.

This may be true in most circumstances but let's take a look at potential insurrection in the United States. I chose the word "insurrection" to mean as it was defined in Article 149 General Order 100 during the Civil War, to wit:
"Insurrection is the rising of people in arms against their government, or a portion of it, or against one or more of its laws, or against an officer or officers of the government. It may be confined to mere armed resistance, or it may have greater ends in view."

First, consider the number of veterans residing in almost any community of the United Sates. There is a huge pool of individuals most of whom have received at least some rudimentary training with firearms, some of whom were the most highly trained shooters in the world.

So the first step is to arm them. How is this accomplished? Seize weapons from active duty military, National Guard armories and police using those aforementioned civilian light weapons. Now I know you're thinking "How would you seize weapons from active duty military?" In the case of a Marine Infantry Company or the 82nd Airborne I concede your point. But, as I former officer, I can tell you that the bulk of the US military is not composed of elite combat troops and if the Army hands out weapons to the 505th Transportation Company and sends them into put down insurrection, which they would be forced into doing in the case of widespread insurrection, I would consider the odds to be much better.

To do this the insurrectionists could exploit three critical points.
First, the ability of the insurrectionists to meld into the community.
Second, the reticence of US troops to fire on US civilians. And,
Third, concern about their own families and relatives.
The last, while ignoble, might be the most easy to exploit. I do not think the behavior of the police in New Orleans, that is abandoning their duty to protect their families, would be an isolated incident. If the insurrectionists actively targeted military dependents I can assure you that if would severely effect the ability of the military to respond. This would also apply, perhaps even more so, to local police departments.

Once you have a cadre of insurrectionists with military grade weapons who know how to use them the sides are closer to even with the insurrectionists fighting for their community and the active duty military distraught over fighting US civilians in the US and worried sick about their families and lived ones.

I pray that such a scenario would never come about but it would be fascinating to observe,

26 posted on 10/08/2005 12:21:31 PM PDT by atomic_dog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Prime Choice
Actually, I can think of one improvement on the Second Amendment...that the phrase "shall not be infringed" be beaten into every congresscritter who thinks that it's okay to sacrifice liberty in the name of liberalism.

The one improvement would be to extend the definition of TREASON to include efforts to disarm the populace.

27 posted on 10/08/2005 12:22:14 PM PDT by supercat (Don't fix blame--FIX THE PROBLEM.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: sailor4321

I'm with you on this one. We don't need to redefine the 2nd Amendment. We need to re-understand it and remove forty plus years of anti-firearm legislation. It has been so long that the government has feared the populace that we have become a socialist state. There is a lot to be said for political stability and the veneration of sacred governmental institutions, but we have become a blind, defanged populace. The 2nd Amendment was written so that we could defend ourselves from government, and that is why the average citizen has a constitutional right to own a tank.


28 posted on 10/08/2005 12:31:38 PM PDT by DC Bound
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Whyarentlibsred
[...it is clear to me that the first part of the Second Amendment “A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state,” no longer applies to the situation in America today and should be changed to better reflect valid reasons for allowing citizens to keep guns in the United States.]



The fact that we have the right to keep and bear arms, and the fact that so many millions of Americans exercise that right is itself a deterrent to the government becoming tyrannical.

And the idea of the military overcoming 260 million Americans by force of superior firepower is absurd because of the fact that there are so many millions of armed citizens. They can't "occupy" every town in America. All they could do is start leveling towns and cities, slaughtering all inhabitants, and I can't conceive of a situation where that would even be plausible.



There is a process for amending the Constitution, though.



1. Congress proposes amendments.
Both houses of Congress approve by two-thirds votes a resolution calling for the amendment. The resolution does not require the president's signature. To become effective, the proposed amendment must then be "ratified" or approved by the legislatures of three-fourths of the states. Congress typically places a time limit of seven years for ratification by the states.

2. The states propose amendments.
The legislatures of two-thirds of the states vote to call for a convention at which constitutional amendments can be proposed. Amendments proposed by the convention would again require ratification by the legislatures of three-fourths of the states.



All twenty-seven amendments, including the Bill of Rights have been added through the first method. The Constitution has never been amended using the second process.



Good luck with it.

<?:^)
29 posted on 10/08/2005 12:39:14 PM PDT by spinestein (Forget the Golden Rule. Remember the Brazen Rule.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Whyarentlibsred
John Kerry pointed to the beheadings in Iraq as evidence that we were losing the war. If a dull knife has the ability of making Democrats wave the white flag of surrender then they will be no match for our guns.
30 posted on 10/08/2005 12:40:27 PM PDT by Jim_Curtis
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Whyarentlibsred

Whyarentlibsred wrote:

"Upon reading the above, it is clear to me that the first part of the Second Amendment “A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state,” no longer applies to the situation in America today."

What do you have to say about Flight 93? What was that but the militia rising up to put a stop to an attack on our country by foreign enemies? It is no mistake that the terrorists chose to strike in one place where there was almost no chance of encountering armed resistance.

What about the numerous documented cases of citizens in New Orleans and Mississippi maintaining order in their communities after the police quit? Or Los Angeles just a few years ago? In fact, the militia is frequently called upon to restore and maintain order; we have just grown out of the habit of seeing it as such.

You suffer from the common misconception that the 2nd Amendment is only for use in military situations. In fact, the whole idea of a militia is to make the People ultimately responsible for the ensuring their own safety, and providing them with the means to do so. The simple fact is that the militia functions EVERY DAY in this country...every time a criminal attacks the innocent and is met by armed resistance, you are looking, in the broadest possible sense, at the militia at work.

No, I do not support any changes to the 2nd Amendment at this time.

Regards.


31 posted on 10/08/2005 12:46:00 PM PDT by The Expert ("Those who forget the past are doomed to be called liberals.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Whyarentlibsred

"Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun"

Mao ZeDong


32 posted on 10/08/2005 12:49:26 PM PDT by Xenophon450 ("Good men do not need laws to behave responsibly, whilst the bad will find a way around." - Plato)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Whyarentlibsred
As i see it Whyarentlibsred is conspicuous by his absence of comments.
33 posted on 10/08/2005 12:52:30 PM PDT by AMERIKA (<-----Click here for "What is Racism")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SteveH
What's happened between the Vietnam War and today in terms of military science?

I appreciate your concern for our RKBA,but please don't fall for the BS that lightly-armed peasants defeated a modern military in Vietnam.

Our modern military destroyed the Vietcong utterly before 1970 and pushed the well-armed modernly-equipped NVA back so effectively by late 1972 that they signed a peace treaty in January of 1973.

It was only after massive communist victories in the US congressional elections of 1974 that the communists were able to prevent the US Military from fulfilling our treaty obligations to the democratically-elected Republic of Vietnam, that Soviet tanks were able to roll down Highway 1 and take Saigon in April/May of 1975.

Peasant army?. No.

34 posted on 10/08/2005 12:52:44 PM PDT by Castlebar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Whyarentlibsred

The Second Amendment is primarily about protecting the rest of the Bill of Rights, and it should stay just the way it is. The New Hampshire Constitution is an even better example of the logic of the Second Amendment:

[Art.] 2. [Natural Rights.] All men have certain natural, essential, and inherent rights - among which are, the enjoying and defending life and liberty; acquiring, possessing, and protecting, property; and, in a word, of seeking and obt aining happiness. Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by this state on account of race, creed, color, sex or national origin.

[Art.] 2-a. [The Bearing of Arms.]. All persons have the right to keep and bear arms in defense of themselves, their families, their property and the state.

[Art.] 7. [State Sovereignty.] The people of this state have the sole and exclusive right of governing themselves as a free, sovereign, and independent state; and do, and forever hereafter shall, exercise and enjoy every power, jurisd iction, and right, pertaining thereto, which is not, or may not hereafter be, by them expressly delegated to the United States of America in congress assembled.

[Art.] 10. [Right of Revolution.] Government being instituted for the common benefit, protection, and security, of the whole community, and not for the private interest or emolument of any one man, family, or class of men; therefore, whenever the ends of government are perverted, and public liberty manifestly endangered, and all other means of redress are ineffectual, the people may, and of right ought to reform the old, or establish a new government. The doctrine of nonresistance against arbitrary power, and oppression, is absurd, slavish, and destructive of the good and happiness of mankind.


35 posted on 10/08/2005 12:55:19 PM PDT by freeandfreezing
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Rockabilly Rebel

'Illegal weapons'? So tyranny by a tyrant with whom you agree is OK? The 2A says, 'the Right shall not be infringed' but you and your tyrant say some weapons are illegal.


36 posted on 10/08/2005 12:58:59 PM PDT by dhuffman@awod.com (The conspiracy of ignorance masquerades as common sense.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Whyarentlibsred
I believe the interpretations the founders would have put on the now clumsy wording of the 2nd amendment is as follows:

Since the government must maintain a standing army to protect the nation, (and standing armies are a threat to personal freedom) the people shall be armed so as to be a deterrent to any would-be despot who would use the standing army against them.

37 posted on 10/08/2005 12:59:09 PM PDT by muir_redwoods (Free Sirhan Sirhan, after all, the bastard who killed Mary Jo Kopechne is walking around free)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: supercat

Or make treason (kerry) an actual crime that will be prosecuted.


38 posted on 10/08/2005 12:59:30 PM PDT by bdfromlv (Leavenworth hard time)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

Comment #39 Removed by Moderator

To: Whyarentlibsred
Upon reading the above, it is clear to me that the first part of the Second Amendment “A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state,” no longer applies to the situation in America today and should be changed to better reflect valid reasons for allowing citizens to keep guns in the United States.

Nope.....I think it is written just fine.

A militia is anyone between the ages of 18 and 49 who in time of war would be called upon to protect the Constitution from all enemies....both foreign and DOMESTIC.

We should all be training to protect that Constitution...by teaching the Constitution to our children and letting them know that there are DOMESTIC enemies who are trying to destroy our Constitution.

The Government is the threat right now. They are in a power grab that is destroying our freedoms with patriot acts and other laws.

They leave our borders open for invasion of terrorists and illegals. And they call freedom loving people who go down to those borders to stop this influx vigilantes. How sad.

How many more federal laws do we need?

How much more spending by the federal government are we going to tolerate?

How much more taxes are we going to have to pay?

You could say that I'm pretty radical.........but I'm no more radical than the founders of this country who fought for the same things I just mentioned.

40 posted on 10/08/2005 1:08:01 PM PDT by Radioactive (I'm on the radio..so I'm radioactive)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Whyarentlibsred
Hmm lets have a look. Government Tyranny killed more than 50 Million this century alone.... I'm sure you say, "it cant happen here." Got news for you, it can. Image hosted by Photobucket.com
41 posted on 10/08/2005 1:17:45 PM PDT by Xenophon450 ("Good men do not need laws to behave responsibly, whilst the bad will find a way around." - Plato)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Whyarentlibsred

"this year will go down in history. for the first time, a civilized nation has full gun registration. our streets will be safer, our police more efficient, and the world will follow our lead into the future!"


adolf hitler 1935


42 posted on 10/08/2005 1:19:54 PM PDT by ronnied (we are the only animals that bare our teeth in greeting...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Whyarentlibsred
While things may have been different in the 1700s, the days when ordinary citizens armed with light weapons (rifles and handguns) can assemble and defeat a professional military are long over.

Bullshit. And stop using U.N terminology. It's unbecoming.

43 posted on 10/08/2005 1:23:11 PM PDT by Larry Lucido
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Xenophon450

Last century, typos....


44 posted on 10/08/2005 1:27:18 PM PDT by Xenophon450 ("Good men do not need laws to behave responsibly, whilst the bad will find a way around." - Plato)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: Castlebar
Thank you, I was going to post much the same thing.

I'd only have added that the professional NVA was backed by CPLA and Soviet professional militaries and we still won in the field.

45 posted on 10/08/2005 1:27:59 PM PDT by ASA Vet (Tag line generation program expired - click here to renew)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: Mogollon
Posse Comitatus prevents using the military against U.S. citizens

Weren't elements of the US Forces (Army, General Wesley Clark) used at Waco?

46 posted on 10/08/2005 1:38:51 PM PDT by NY Attitude (You are responsible for your safety until the arrival of Law Enforcement Officers!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Whyarentlibsred
While things may have been different in the 1700s, the days when ordinary citizens armed with light weapons (rifles and handguns) can assemble and defeat a professional military are long over.

You may test that assumption at your convenience. Molon labe.

There is now a vast disparity between the amount of firepower that the average gun owner on one side, and the U.S. military on the other, could bring to a hypothetical fight

But the US gov't would be forced to commit wholesale destruction of its own cities and infrastructure in order to root us out. It wouldn't be worth it. Plus, an unknown but probably very large % of the military would defect to us, although I'll bet we could win even if they didn't.

and historically even the successful guerilla movements that drove away professional armies possessed more weapons than just long arms. For example, the Afghan guerillas who defeated the Soviets possessed recoilless rifles, RPGs,

Stolen from the Soviets with the aid of long arms and native cleverness,

and Stinger SAMs

Supplied by a hostile power, not in possession in the beginning of the fight.

Sorry, all history argues that you're just plain wrong. The fear of a domestic guerilla movement is still a very powerful, though currently hypothetical, threat to the US gov't and is ALMOST CERTAINLY the reason why the liberal socialists are so hot for gun control despite massive domestic and foreign evidence of the fact that it's counterproductive in its *publicly stated* goal of "crime control".

I remain convinced that the meteroic rise of the m!l!t!@ movement after Waco (the test case), is the sole reason why Komrades Klinton and their fellow traitors pulled back on their efforts to move us down the road of socialist tyranny. They knew that they could not win, and would probably pay not only with their positions but their lives.

47 posted on 10/08/2005 1:43:48 PM PDT by Rytwyng
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Whyarentlibsred

So...what say you?


48 posted on 10/08/2005 1:55:41 PM PDT by Xenophon450 ("Good men do not need laws to behave responsibly, whilst the bad will find a way around." - Plato)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Comment #49 Removed by Moderator

To: Xenophon450

Maybe a Viking Kitty got his tongue. ;-)


50 posted on 10/08/2005 2:14:41 PM PDT by NY Attitude (You are responsible for your safety until the arrival of Law Enforcement Officers!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-136 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