HR 4269

[Nebe]

I think the rub about the 2nd amendment is this- was it created to have a Militia ready to rise and fight for the country? Or was it intended to act as a deterrent from government oppression ? Is this question answered in the amendment? I do t think so.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Nebe

I think the rub about the 2nd amendment is this- was it created to have a Militia ready to rise and fight for the country? Or was it intended to act as a deterrent from government oppression ? Is this question answered in the amendment? I do t think so.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

The Amendment, as written, was about the security of a free State. "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." That would include "rising and fighting," as you put it, against ANY government which tried to limit or deny the freedoms granted to the People in the Constitution.

That was made clear by those who drafted the Constitution in their debates during ratification, and in their debates in various newspapers and journals, and especially in the essays in the ongoing debate between the Federalists and the Anti-Federalists. As well as in various comments by Founders during and after the ratification of the Constitution.

They understood the federal government they were creating might one day become just as tyrannical as the British government they had just overthrown. If it were given power to control citizen access to firearms as the British tried to do, then it could disarm them.

The Second Amendment was intended to protect the citizens from tyrannical government, regardless if it was "their own" or a foreign government. Even more so to protect against "their own" government, since attacks by foreign governments could initially and more efficiently be repelled by the standing federal military, not by the "militia," of "their own" government.

[ecduzitgood]

Originally Posted by detbuch

The Amendment, as written, was about the security of a free State. "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." That would include "rising and fighting," as you put it, against ANY government which tried to limit or deny the freedoms granted to the People in the Constitution.

That was made clear by those who drafted the Constitution in their debates during ratification, and in their debates in various newspapers and journals, and especially in the essays in the ongoing debate between the Federalists and the Anti-Federalists. As well as various comments by Founders during and after the ratification of the Constitution.

They understood the federal government they were creating might one day become just as tyrannical as the British government they had just overthrown. If it were given power to control citizen access to firearms as the British tried to do, then it could disarm them.

The Second Amendment was intended to protect the citizens from tyrannical government, regardless if it was "their own" or a foreign government. Even more so to protect against "their own" government, since attacks by foreign governments could initially and more efficiently be repelled by the standing federal military, not the "militia," of "their own" government.

That's the way I see it. And to claim they didn't forsee the advancement of arms in regards to efficiency or lethality is rediculous. They wanted the people/citizens to have the ability to protect their freedom.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by ecduzitgood

That's the way I see it. And to claim they didn't forsee the advancement of arms in regards to efficiency or lethality is rediculous. They wanted the people/citizens to have the ability to protect their freedom.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Yes, that's one of those specious little arguments the left throws out in the hopes that we're too stupid to see through them. Currently, among lot's of other things, for instance, Obamacare. They were depending on the stupidity of the American people to not grasp what was really going on.

As for seeing the advancement of arms, OF COURSE, the Founders knew that weapons would become deadlier. They were highly intelligent students of history. The knew very well that the weapons as well as all the other contrivances of their own time were technologically superior to those of the past. And that the technological advance of history was not going to stop with their generation. Heck, Franklin was discovering electricity. There were many technological inventions and advancements being created right in their view. That's why they made the structure of the Constitution general enough to apply to future generations, rather than so specific and cumbersome so that it could only apply to conditions as they were.

They knew well that militaries and weapons could become far more lethal than in their days of ratification. And they knew that if the second amendment were to enable the People to fight against tyrannical government in the future, they would require sufficient weapons similar to those against whom they would fight. That's why they wrote "arms" rather than "muskets."

[Slipknot]

Originally Posted by detbuch

As for seeing the advancement of arms, OF COURSE, the Founders knew that weapons would become deadlier.

They knew well that militaries and weapons could become far more lethal than in their days of ratification. And they knew that if the second amendment were to enable the People to fight against tyrannical government in the future, they would require sufficient weapons similar to those against whom they would fight. That's why they wrote "arms" rather than "muskets."

That is the most important part
I think debutch should go on CNN and explain things, he does a good job.

Our rights to bear arms have been infringed on enough already
I would like access to claymore mines and rocket launchers so we can make America great again :-)
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[scottw]

Originally Posted by Nebe

I think the rub about the 2nd amendment is this- was it created to have a Militia ready to rise and fight for the country? Or was it intended to act as a deterrent from government oppression ? Is this question answered in the amendment? I do t think so.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

well, since the Constitution and Bill of Rights are documents designed to be "deterrents from government oppression"(our government, not foreign governments) and a framework for the relationship between our government and the individual....I think it's pretty obvious...is it not?

as you said previously "shall not be infringed" is pretty clear...