wrz:You do not understand English grammar very well. The phrase
guaranteeing the right to bear arms was qualified by a conditional clause. Just
because you can pull a phrase out of context does not mean it can stand alone.
There will always be people who want to twist and change laws and rules for
their benefit. The 2nd Amendment was written for our protection and rights. It
is not to be changed, I believe. It is good and firm as stated. I'm
grateful for it. It allows and creates a legal way to protect myself my family
or friends if needed be without fear of retribution. Sometimes these rights are
taken advantage of because of political feelings but it does not change the fact
that the Second Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America
was written for our protection and is not to be changed in any way.
To you anti-gun liberals. Just imagine an amendment that read, "A well
regulated medical system being necessary for a free country, the right of a
woman to have an abortion shall not be infringed." And to those
of you who look to the organized government run military as an out for
"militia", just remember this. The Bill of Rights was written as a list
of powers the individule people/person has to prevent government from having too
much power over said people. In other words, the Bill of Rights gave power to
the people, not power to the government. The right and power of government to
form armies and a military are contained in other parts of the Constitution.
2 bitsCottonwood Heights, UT@Open Minded Mormon,Re:
"Armed inserrection and rebellion is treason"....Tell that
to those "radical right wing gun guys" back in 1776 New England...========== 1. They exhausted every diplomatic resource
available to them.2. As an Englisman, Benjamin Franklin personally
appealed to Parliment, but was thrown out.[He later said - He walked in an
Englishman, and Walked out an American.]3. They then Declared
themselves "Independant" from England BEFORE they armed themselves.4. Once they became a sovergin Nation, they fought to expel the foreign
English.5. They were regimented, uniformed, & trained.6. They had sworn an oath, and were given rank [line of Authority] commissed
as wither Officers or Enlisted.7. They were rag-tagged, but NOT far
from being a self-proclaimed Mob like Cliven Bundy and his "gang".8. BTW -- "radical right wing gun guys" back in 1776 New
England, were actually LEFT wing, because the right Wing were Conservatives,
Torries, who wanted to maintain the status quo and keep things [conserve] they
way they were....
Frozen Fractals:"Not unlike our current government?"That's right. The current Administration seems bent on destroying
this country bit by bit."So you think we should consider a
coup?"Yes. And it can be done most effectively these days at
the ballot box."If your goal was to make people more supportive
of militias I don't think you're doing a very good job of it."My goal is to show that a militia was the prime way the British was
defeated back in the day, resulting in this great country being formed. It
might have to be done again some day, with a modern militia. You never know.
Look what's been happening in the Ukraine these days?
"Some have argued that the Second Amendment is about ensuring we have an
armed populous that can form itself into a militia. To do so would not
constitute a militia, but an armed mob".=====While
an armed mob is one of the possibilities, it isn't the only one. Should a
natural disaster happen, people being armed can band together to help defend
their neighborhoods. Whenever a home invasion happens, a family can defend
themselves.Sure there is the National Guard and the police, and our
founders provided for government protection when they gave Congress the power to
establish a military. However our founders also recognized the right of PEOPLE
independent of government to defend themselves by including the 2nd Amendment in
State militias were used in all of our wars until a large army was amassed
mostly through a draft in World War I. A draft did enlarge the Confederate and
Union armies in the Civil War, but it was still mostly fought by state militias.
A "well regulated (state) militia" is not a mob. A group of individuals,
who bear arms and gather together without any regulation under state or federal
laws, and call themselves a militia (like the Bundy supporters)? There is your
@Open Minded Mormon,Re: "Armed inserrection and rebellion is
treason"....Tell that to those "radical right wing gun
guys" back in 1776 New England...Tell it to the Tea Party guys (the
real ones, not the new ones).Tell it to Paul Revere and his friends.Tell it to the people who wrote the "Bill of Rights" and the 2nd
Amendment...You now the history of the 2nd Amendment... right?Google "2nd amendment"... (Wikipedia)"The Second
Amendment (Amendment II) to the United States Constitution protects the right of
individuals to keep and bear arms. The Supreme Court of the United States has
ruled that the right vests in individuals, not merely collective
militias"..."The Second Amendment was adopted on December
15, 1791, as part of the first ten amendments comprising the Bill of
Rights"..."The Second Amendment was based partially on the
right to keep and bear arms in English common-law and was influenced by the
English Bill of Rights of 1689. Sir William Blackstone described this right as
an auxiliary right, supporting the natural rights of self-defense and resistance
The only Constitutional "weapon" you radical right wing gun guys have to
change the Government is the "ballot box".Armed inserrection
and rebellion is treason, BTW Abrahma Lincoln did the right thing.
IMO the 2nd amendment isn't so the citizens can overthrow the government.
That would only be needed IF the government got so corrupt and abusive to the
people that the people thought they had to risk their lives and the lives of
their children to bring about change. There's LOTS of ways to bring about
change (before it turns to armed insurrection).The left uses the
threat of armed insurrection way more than the right. Read "The coming
insurrection"... written as a handbook for European leftists and marxists
for when the time comes. Also referenced by Cloward and Piven (in their theory
for how to overthrow the US Government and install Marxism). Also used by the
violent leftist student group "SDS - Students for a democratic society"
in their "days of rage" riots in Chicago, and the "Weather
Underground" (in their bombing campaign against the US Government)...The Right believes in the RIGHT to be armed. But as a rhetorical
deterrent to any leaders that may gradually think about abusing it's
citizens, or take their rights, or their liberty (because they are defenseless).
When the government KNOWS citizens are not defenseless... this will never
Open minded,No, you won’t. It goes against your deeply held beliefs.
@wrz"The purpose of the militia (a force composed of non-professional
fighters such as citizens as opposed to a professional full-time military) is to
have a way for citizens to overthrow a government that has gone amok (not unlike
our current government)."Not unlike our current government? So
you think we should consider a coup? If your goal was to make people more
supportive of militias I don't think you're doing a very good job of
Mountanman says:"The SCOTUS has ruled that it is the right of every
American without a criminal record to protect themselves with firearms! The
really cool thing about this is if you DON'T want to own a gun, and you
believe the police can protect you, you don't have to own a firearm! Its
called freedom! Imagine that!"I love your hypocrisy; now if
you'll just apply your logic to another of our favorite topics...
"The SCOTUS has ruled that it is the right of every American without a
criminal record to protect themselves with firearms"They have
also ruled that there can be limits on 1) what you could own2) who
can own it3) where you can carry it Funny how people tout
SCOTUS rulings to support their position and ignore them when they dont.
wrz:"Of course, a militia with 'arms' would be hard-pressed
to overthrow today's government which controls a huge, regular military
with things like tanks, airplanes, ICBMs, and Hillary Clinton to run it
all."Wait a minute, wrz... did you not know that the government
can't legally use its military against its own citizens?
The Wraith"The 2nd amendment is outdated and needs to be
changed."Tell that to the folks who are authorized to amend the
Constitution."It was written at a time when the most advanced
technology in the world were muzzle loading rifles."Nonetheless,
some kind of armament is needed in case we get a despotic, dictatorial
government (something like we have today). And it can happen. You can't
overthrow a bad government with slingshots and machetes.Kent C.
DeForrest:"...applied only to keeping and bearing arms for military
purposes and . . . did not impose any limit whatsoever on the power of states or
local governments to regulate the ownership or use of firearms."Doesn't matter what purpose the arms were for. The Amendment
unequivocally states that 'the right of the people to keep and bear arms
shall not be infringed.'"Historically, then, the NRA and
its puppets in Congress have no leg to stand on."They have the
2nd Amendment to stand on."Stevens suggests adding five words to
the amendment... 'when serving in the Militia.'"I
guess Stevens wants a riot of gun owners (i.e., hunters) on his hands.
Did I miss anything?Yes, almost everything.Firstly, a
well regulated militia is not a mob unless you think the Minute Men back in the
day were a mob.The purpose of the militia (a force composed of
non-professional fighters such as citizens as opposed to a professional
full-time military) is to have a way for citizens to overthrow a government that
has gone amok (not unlike our current government). Of course, a militia with
'arms' would be hard-pressed to overthrow today's government
which controls a huge, regular military with things like tanks, airplanes,
ICBMs, and Hillary Clinton to run it all.Doesn't mean the
people don't need to keep and bear arms for self protection in today's
wicked world... but a far cry from the original intent.
Lost in DCNo I mean that one of the things our founders were worried
about is that in later years the American people would look back at them and
these documents and hold them in such a high place that we would almost worship
them. Today we do, we feel that these documents are so sacred we are paralyzed
by them, people seem to think they are without error and the most perfect of all
documents. The 2nd amendment is a perfect example. We clearly have some
challenges today with weapons that the founders couldn't have conceived of.
But are people even willing to discuss alterations in the 2nd amendment?The founders hoped we would have a country today that when faced with
difficult problems would be able to come together and find a solution for them.
Instead we have a country when faced with modern problems is trapped by many who
feel that ideas from the 18th century are sufficient. We have lost the unique
American ability to forge ahead with new ideas while holding to core ideas. As a
result we have problems we don't solve.
@Open Minded Mormon/airnaut/LDS Liberal/LDS Treehugger...The
Constitution does not protect your right to poses chemical, biological, and even
nuclear weapons. I think we all know that. People have been arrested for
it.But were the civilians who organised themselves and stood up
against their Government and their King in Concord Mass... breaking our laws?
No. And it's not illegal to be armed in America to this very day (even if
you're not in the National Guard).===The US Supreme
Court already ruled on your exact assertion (that the Constitution was referring
to the National Guard). They ruled to the contrary to your assumption (in the
case where Washington DC law limited gun ownership to military, national Guard,
and Police). That law was struck down by SCOTUS and in the majority opinion
they stated that the organized militia did NOT refer only the National
Guard/police/military... but was a RIGHT of EVERY Citizen.They said
we can have laws that limit that right for specific reasons (mental illness,
etc) but the Constitution protects the right in general (not just for those in
the National Guard).
@lost in DCWest Jordan, UTOpen minded,Jefferson opposed
a standing army, and saw the militia as a counter-balance to it. The militia is
required to prevent tyranny, not just foreign invasion.========US Constitution Article I, Section 8 ---To provide for
calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union,suppress
Insurrections and repel Invasions;To provide for organizing, arming,
and disciplining, the Militia, and forgoverning such Part of them as may
be employed in the Service of the UnitedStates, reserving to the States
respectively, the Appointment of the Officers,and the Authority of
training the Militia according to the disciplineprescribed by Congress;------ You show me where it sees preventing tyranny, orfunding for an untrained, undiscipled, group of red-necks with guns in a
pickup truck, without officers, rank, properly marked uniforms or vehicles,
calling themselves a "Militia" -- that is a MOB, gang, Mogadishu. If you can show me that, then I acquiesce.
The Second Amendment, like the entire Constitution, was written by reasonable
men to be understood by reasonable men and women. Reasonable people don't
want to own large military weapons so that argument against the Second Amendment
is absurd. But many reasonable people also don't want to be unarmed and at
the mercy of criminals who don't feel bound by law, be they citizen,
undocumented alien or government-employed.
Open minded,So why do I need ID to buy stuff at the local drug store, but
not to vote?Hutterite,Jefferson opposed a standing army, and
saw the militia as a counter-balance to it. The militia is required to prevent
tyranny, not just foreign invasion.Wraith,They DID want us to
change it – it’s called the amendment process. But they
didn’t want us to hold it sacred? Do you know when Madison v Marbury was
"Because it is absolutely critical that we prevent the militia from being
used to oppress the people, or to overthrow the duly appointed
government."Wow, very creative reading of a rather simple
phrase."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."According to retired Supreme Court Justice John Paul
Stevens, "Concern that a national standing army might pose a threat to the
security of the separate states led to the adoption of the Second Amendment. . .
. For more than 200 years following the adoption of that amendment, federal
judges uniformly understood that the right protected by that text . . . applied
only to keeping and bearing arms for military purposes and . . . did not impose
any limit whatsoever on the power of states or local governments to regulate the
ownership or use of firearms."Historically, then, the NRA and
its puppets in Congress have no leg to stand on. Stevens suggests
adding five words to the amendment to restore the original intent of the framers
of the Constitution: "when serving in the Militia."
Airnaut. What do you think the 2nd amendment mean when it guarantees the right
of citizens to bear arms? Sling shots? Come on man!
MountanmanHayden, IDThe SCOTUS has ruled that it is the right of
every American without a criminal record to protect themselves with firearms!====== Did I say anything about "firearms"? Nope.And neither did the letter writer -- It is this silly,
preconcieved notion that any American, can posses any weapon, and anytime, and
anywhere -- THAT is just plain wrong.BTW -- I'd just like
to see what a country of private citizens with firearms, fighting on their home
turf, can do -- vs. a fully armed, and trained fighting
force like the United States military.Hint: Look up:
successful military campaing of AlQueda against the U.S. military.
Any weapon I want? I am fascinated with thermo-nuclear weapons. Can I please
have 10 of them? I promise I'll do my best not to wipe out too many
cities.The biggest problem with the 2nd amendment (and really the
constitution in general) is that people hold it far more sacred than those who
wrote it intended. The would have wanted us to change parts of it if modern
circumstances required it. The 2nd amendment is outdated and needs to be
changed. It was written at a time when the most advanced technology in the world
were muzzle loading rifles. We need to solve some serious problems.
Should we allow Americans to have any weapon they want, if not what will be
limited (we already do this, I can't own an F-22)? How are we going to
prevent people who are a danger to others from access to weapons (this will
never be 100% but we can do much better than we are now)? What do we need to do
to lessen this countries violent culture?
The SCOTUS has ruled that it is the right of every American without a criminal
record to protect themselves with firearms! The really cool thing about this is
if you DON'T want to own a gun, and you believe the police can protect you,
you don't have to own a firearm! Its called freedom! Imagine that!
Lines are always drawn. The tough part is deciding who gets to draw them...
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. When I read
these words, I come away with a different understanding. First, when they were
written, a 'well regulated militia' was necessary for the security of
a free state. In these days of us having arguably the best standing army on
earth, is this well regulated militia necessary, if so where is it,and if it
exists, why do we have a standing military? I know the supreme court has weighed
in on this, but the whole well regulated (not armed mob) militia requirement
seems to impose conditions on the second portion of the sentence. If the militia
isn't necessary, then what. One other point, we don't get to own
surface to air anything as part of the second amendment. There is a line drawn
somewhere, maybe we could tweak it a bit.
The structure of this letter is somewhat disjointed, but it raises an important
question. Specifically, will the public continue to accept policies of a
decidedly left-wing administration which trample on the ideals of the Founding
Fathers? The Second Amendment is just one part of the Bill of
Rights. Freedom of speech, freedom of religion, and many others are under
direct attack by the left-wing. The left-wing is determined to turn
this Country into just another European-style post-Christian socialist state.
Will the slumbering masses awaken before it is too late?
I'm not exactly sure where this letter writer is trying to lead -- But -- I can assure you that the Foudning Father's of
1776 did not forsee the day when "I" - a single citizen - would be able
to produce weapons of mass destruct [chemical, biological, and even nuclear]
with stuff that could be found at a local hardware store.So - NO,
the "right to keep and bear arms" does not allow you have any weapon you
want.BTW - I was in the Consitutional "Militia", and
it's called the National Guard.And "rebellion and
inserrections" is another "Constitutional" requirement given to turn
on our own civilians - particularly those who think they are "armed".
I like how the left controlled mass media likes to call any gun owner a racist.
But they will never admit that the NRA was originally founded to fight the KKK
and that the first Gun control laws were used against black people. LBJ even
said when he signed the civil rights act, "I will have these n-words voting
Democrat for the next 80 years." Democrats are still racist. Instead of
controlling minorities with plantations, they control them through Government
dependence and phony race baiting opprotunists that pretend to fight on their
behalf, Like Al Sharpton. Anyone that wanted real Civil rights, they killed.
People Like Martin Luther King and Malcolm X.