Skip to comments.
A Well Regulated Militia? (a view that you may never have heard before)
GodSeesYou.com ^
| Unknown
| Ken Kiger
Posted on 01/18/2013 12:14:05 PM PST by RightFighter
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80, 81-96 next last
I was searching for some info on gun rights and a good explanation of the 2nd amendment's wording regarding the militia yesterday, and I happened upon this site. I read this, and it was like my eyes opened for the first time to what the 2nd Amendment really means. I had never considered it in this way before. I always thought that the amendment was basically saying that we should have the right to keep and bear arms in case we need to organize as a militia to secure ourselves, but this is an entirely different perspective, and, I think probably the correct one.
Thoughts?
To: RightFighter
Very interesting. Good post.
2
posted on
01/18/2013 12:18:45 PM PST
by
JOAT
To: RightFighter
every leftist tells me “well-regulated” means “lots of government regulations.”
3
posted on
01/18/2013 12:19:46 PM PST
by
TurboZamboni
(Looting the future to bribe the present)
To: RightFighter
I believe this is the correct understanding. Thank-you for posting it.
4
posted on
01/18/2013 12:20:09 PM PST
by
blueunicorn6
("A crack shot and a good dancer")
To: TurboZamboni
I told a friend yesterday that the 2nd does not say “the right of the people to keep and bear well-regulated arms...” or “the right of the well-regulated militia to keep and bear arms...”
5
posted on
01/18/2013 12:21:33 PM PST
by
RightFighter
(It was all for nothing.)
To: RightFighter
Thank you for sharing, it does make sense.
I have been studying the various state constitutions and their RTKBA language and been struck by the fact that most of them (not all) clearly define the RTKBA as an individual’s right and that self defense is often discussed as well as defense of the State.
6
posted on
01/18/2013 12:25:22 PM PST
by
Robert357
(D.Rather "Hoist with his own petard!" www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1223916/posts)
To: RightFighter
It’s an interesting perspective, but one that should be supported by contemporaneous writings if this is indeed the intent.
7
posted on
01/18/2013 12:26:38 PM PST
by
Defiant
(If there are infinite parallel universes, why Lord, am I living in the one with Obama as President?)
To: RightFighter
Please read
Miracle at Pennsylvania to understand how every word of both the Constitution and the Bill of Rights was meticulously argued and fought over.
If there had been any ambiguity in the understanding of the Second Amendment, it would not have take over 200 years to discover it.
Modern, progressive, interpretation of the founding documents have produced many falsehoods, ambiguities, penumbras and fictitious rights that the founders did not include.
8
posted on
01/18/2013 12:32:52 PM PST
by
Aevery_Freeman
(Proud Thought Criminal since 1984)
To: RightFighter
From
Federalist 29, Hamilton makes it clear that gun rights are a state issue. It is entirely up to each State to determine how much it wants to allow weaponry access to any potential militia members.
9
posted on
01/18/2013 12:35:41 PM PST
by
Hoodat
("As for God, His way is perfect" - Psalm 18:30)
To: RightFighter
I thought “well regulated” meant “well equipped” in the vernacular of the day.
10
posted on
01/18/2013 12:36:39 PM PST
by
csmusaret
(I will give Obama credit for one thing- he is living proof that familiarity breeds contempt.)
To: RightFighter
11
posted on
01/18/2013 12:36:52 PM PST
by
gorush
(History repeats itself because human nature is static)
To: RightFighter
Reading the ratification by NYS makes the right to bear arms much clearer. Please be aware that all the "brains" edited it to death when they finally approved the Bill of Rights.
What we know with absolute certainity is the Bill of Rights pertains to each and every one of us as "an individual".
Read my next post please.
To: Sacajaweau
To: RightFighter
14
posted on
01/18/2013 12:44:38 PM PST
by
onyx
(FREE REPUBLIC IS HERE TO STAY! DONATE MONTHLY! IF YOU WANT ON SARAH PALIN''S PING LIST, LET ME KNOW)
To: FReepers; Patriots; FRiends
15
posted on
01/18/2013 12:45:19 PM PST
by
onyx
(FREE REPUBLIC IS HERE TO STAY! DONATE MONTHLY! IF YOU WANT ON SARAH PALIN''S PING LIST, LET ME KNOW)
To: TurboZamboni
It needs to be clarified how “regulated,” even used in the wrong context as gun grabbers often do to support their agenda, doesn't mean what they think it does. The framers of the Constitution never said that regulated equals government control. It meant trained and equipped. It's the same as bleeding hearts redefining “welfare” to mean the government trough and not its real original intended meaning of well being.
16
posted on
01/18/2013 12:49:37 PM PST
by
Hillarys Gate Cult
(Liberals make unrealistic demands on reality and reality doesn't oblige them.)
To: RightFighter
As it is almost impossible to debate any Saul Alinsky loving liberal with just a few words. When they try to force me into the militia quagmire, I simply reply.
“No honest person could possibly look at the 1st to 5th Amendments (call them what ever you want but keep it short) and not realize every one of them was 100% to protect the citizens from an overreaching government therefore “SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED” is the definitive term and with the very first gun law passed the federal government violated the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.
“SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED” is not grey it is an absolute. There is no wiggle room in “SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED” yet we have allowed them to make the phrase meaningless.
The lying, dishonest, treasonous scum on the left, from our boy community organizer on down, are either too ignorant or are truly the enemy within and working to implement every element of the communist manifesto.
I maintain, our right to protect ourselves from an overreaching government DEMANDS we have equal fire power to what ever the government is willing to use against its own citizens. If that statement is wrong then the RTKBA is completely meaningless as they could regulate us down to slingshots and still claim we are armed.
17
posted on
01/18/2013 12:50:12 PM PST
by
Wurlitzer
(Nothing says "ignorance" like Islam!)
To: Jim Hill
18
posted on
01/18/2013 12:54:48 PM PST
by
Jim Hill
To: RightFighter
This dovetails well with the understanding that the founders did not envision having a large standing armed forces as we have today.
19
posted on
01/18/2013 12:56:33 PM PST
by
Iron Munro
(I Miss America, don't you?)
To: csmusaret
I agree. Regulated meant to make regular, common, in good working order, armed with what is in common use.
It is also clear that the right is a right of the people.
It doesn't really matter what is in the first part, all that matters is the right of the people to keep and bear arms. The first part could have said anything and it wouldn't change it.
“Peanut butter and jelly sandwiches, being necessary to feed Elvis, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed”
It might be a dumb reason for doing so, but it doesn't change the intent of the amendment.
20
posted on
01/18/2013 1:04:04 PM PST
by
Beagle8U
(Free Republic -- One stop shopping ....... It's the Conservative Super WalMart for news .)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80, 81-96 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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson