Founders and Framers on the People's Natural Right to Keep and Bear Arms

[klippert]

Ask the Ukrainians, if the citizens were Armed, would the Soviets have Rolled over them....
Oh that's right, you've not heard..you're part of the 44 people that watch CNN, P-MSNBC, C-BS, N-BS-C....The Enlightenment and Propaganda wing of The first Amendment... Their not saying much about the Soviets are they...

Most of Europe is shock full of Pacifist, Socialist, and worst of all....multiculturalism. Islam is watching very closely. The second amendment is the easy to understand and most difficult to co-opt by the left.

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.

ONE EFFING SENTENCE

 

[zipman]

Ask the Ukrainians, if the citizens were Armed, would the Soviets have Rolled over them....
Oh that's right, you've not heard..you're part of the 44 people that watch CNN, P-MSNBC, C-BS, N-BS-C....The Enlightenment and Propaganda wing of The first Amendment... Their not saying much about the Soviets are they...

Most of Europe is shock full of Pacifist, Socialist, and worst of all....multiculturalism. Islam is watching very closely. The second amendment is the easy to understand and most difficult to co-opt by the left.

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.

ONE EFFING SENTENCE

Yes, they would have rolled right over the Ukranians. Any professional fighting force would do that to armed civilians.

 

[bill-pix-trade]

I have the right to defend myself. If you think differently break into my house some night. Go ahead I'll wait.

 

[Ishmael]

They did not write to technology; they did not fall into that fallacy. They wrote to the conditions of rulers and subjects which does not change with technology. Each new generation tend to conflate technology and social evolution.

The biggest mass killers and devaluers of our society do not use guns, but the right of the press (tv and movies). They have over 50 million abortions to their credit. Those are numbers comparable to Stalin, Hitler and Pol Pot.

And it's almost impossible to get the true believers in that conflation to move away from that belief. Most have never truly studied history.

Ishmael

 

[BotanyBoy]

Yes, they would have rolled right over the Ukranians. Any professional fighting force would do that to armed civilians.

Really?

Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan.....the US military, the greatest fighting force the planet has ever seen has had it's ass kicked 3 fucking times in a row by armed civilians.

 

[eyer]

And it's almost impossible to get the true believers in that conflation to move away from that belief. Most have never truly studied history.

Ishmael

Example A:

Yes, they would have rolled right over the Ukranians. Any professional fighting force would do that to armed civilians.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

And it's almost impossible to get the true believers in that conflation to move away from that belief. Most have never truly studied history.

Ishmael

Well, the new generation seems to have studied the Common Core variant of it...

 

[zipman]

Example A:

Still stuck on stupid, eh eyer?

 

[eyer]

Still stuck on stupid, eh eyer?

You greatly overestimate yourself thinking you're stupid, nipper...

...and these irrelevant little turds you're infamous for constantly dropping are hardly sticky-able.

 

[zipman]

You greatly overestimate yourself thinking you're stupid, nipper...

...and these irrelevant little turds you're infamous for constantly dropping are hardly sticky-able.

If you're stupid enough to believe that armed Ukrainians would have stopped the professionally trained Russian forces that took over Crimea that's your business.

 

[Byron In Exile]

If you're stupid enough to believe that armed Ukrainians would have stopped the professionally trained Russian forces that took over Crimea that's your business.

Europe has an even more vested interest in this one. I disagree with you and Vette, I don't think Putin would dare send in troops on this one.

Not sure I trust your definition of "stupid."

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

I did rather like your printing press answer...

 

[BotanyBoy]

If you're stupid enough to believe that armed Ukrainians would have stopped the professionally trained Russian forces that took over Crimea that's your business.

The afghan mujahideen did in the 80s...

then they have had us spinning out for 13 years.

Why couldn't the Ukrainians?

 

[KingOrfeo]

There are no such things as natural rights, because there is no such thing as natural law.

 

[dan_c00000]

This is a perfect example of what happens to you when you become alone, dry, boring, unsociable and get no ass whatsoever.

Not only that but all that stuff, while dry and boring, doesn't help him with the fact that the 2nd Amendment is not an unlimited right.

Anyway, I'm guessing he's using his cap gun as the surrogate penis he so desperately needs.

 

[StrangeLife]

Really?

Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan.....the US military, the greatest fighting force the planet has ever seen has had it's ass kicked 3 fucking times in a row by armed civilians.

No it didn't. Vietnam was a politically decided withdrawal and the two others weren't "wars" - more like "interventions" or "pest control."

That being said, I agree that the Ukrainians would have been a lot better off with an armed population...

 

[dan_c00000]

The afghan mujahideen did in the 80s...

then they have had us spinning out for 13 years.

Why couldn't the Ukrainians?

The Afghan Mujahideen did that in the 1980s thanks to aid from the CIA weapons program called Operation Cyclone.

 

[Ferrumitzal]

We have a 200 year old rule. Why didn't the rule change as the guns changed?

The same could be said for the 1st Amendment. Nobody envisioned telephones or the internet, and look at all the potential for damage that they have. Aside from this internet bullying shite being talked about, you have slander and libel all over them. You have zero need to communicate instantly around the world, especially when denying you that ability would also hamper the proliferation of kiddie porn.

The arms mentioned in the 2nd Amendment fired one shot and took about a half minute to reload. They weren't much use for personal defense.

Again, you show your ignorance of the subject. Two shots per minute was considered slow.

You get one shot and your right to bear arms becomes a right to swing a club.

A club is an "arm". "Bear arms" means to "bear weapons". The two words are synonymous. Furthermore, the fact that your weapon no longer works, for whatever reason, does not negate your right to have that weapon.

When it came to shooting at people, the arms really weren't effective unless you had a group of men, all shooting at the same time.

Again with the ignorance. Not only were these were the best firearms that technology could provide at the time, but they were also in common use in the woods and fields every day. If they were so horribly inaccurate, they wouldn't have been able to be relied on to bring down game. These were tools of survival and you can bet that nobody would have bought them if they couldn't be relied on to put food on the table.

It's trendy to pretend the militia part of the 2nd Amendment means nothing, because if that part is conveniently ignored, we can all have guns that fire bullets until our finger is tired. It is not what the founding fathers envisioned, but it's easy to pick and choose a few quotes and pretend they have some bearing on our current problem.

Who ever said that the militia part meant nothing? According to the papers written back then, the "militia" was every male over the age of 18. It was a commonly-accepted notion, often written about in papers from the most educated, that every single guy in the US had an obligation to help preserve the Union. As such, they were part of the militia.

It's not what they envisioned? Are you psychic all of a sudden? The Founding Fathers were surrounded by private citizens that had the most advanced weaponry in the world. Flintlock rifles were a common item even though they were considered top-shelf military equipment. The british had them in their armies, and they went to Concord to confiscate the colonist's.

When the war finally broke out, it was private citizens that brought forth their cannons and ships of war to aid the effort.

 

[islandman]

Ask the Ukrainians, if the citizens were Armed, would the Soviets have Rolled over them....
Oh that's right, you've not heard..you're part of the 44 people that watch CNN, P-MSNBC, C-BS, N-BS-C....The Enlightenment and Propaganda wing of The first Amendment... Their not saying much about the Soviets are they...

Most of Europe is shock full of Pacifist, Socialist, and worst of all....multiculturalism. Islam is watching very closely. The second amendment is the easy to understand and most difficult to co-opt by the left.

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.

ONE EFFING SENTENCE

Please point me to the well-regulated militia.

Thanks.

 

[oggbashan]

...

When the war finally broke out, it was private citizens that brought forth their cannons and ships of war to aid the effort.

What about the French?

They had most of the cannons and ships of war helping the Americans.

 

[Byron In Exile]

Please point me to the well-regulated militia.

It never ceases to amaze me how the meaning of a simple grammatical construction such as this is clear to everyone in every context except this one.

 

[islandman]

It never ceases to amaze me how the meaning of a simple grammatical construction such as this is clear to everyone in every context except this one.

The Framers found it necessary to revise the language on several occasions, and it is still all the center of much debate.

It never ceases to amaze me how someone clearly not a simpleton can be so simple about such things.

 

[Sean Renaud]

The same could be said for the 1st Amendment. Nobody envisioned telephones or the internet, and look at all the potential for damage that they have. Aside from this internet bullying shite being talked about, you have slander and libel all over them. You have zero need to communicate instantly around the world, especially when denying you that ability would also hamper the proliferation of kiddie porn.

Exactly. Which is why it's past time we sat down like adults and had a conversation. I don't even see what's at all complicated about it.

It's not what they envisioned? Are you psychic all of a sudden? The Founding Fathers were surrounded by private citizens that had the most advanced weaponry in the world. Flintlock rifles were a common item even though they were considered top-shelf military equipment. The british had them in their armies, and they went to Concord to confiscate the colonist's.

When the war finally broke out, it was private citizens that brought forth their cannons and ships of war to aid the effort.

They weren't psychic. Ultimately they aren't here to speak for themselves but I think it's safe to say they had no idea that we'd be able to wipe out the equivalent of a village in the blink of an eye one day. Warfare throughout all of human history up to the their point had gone from sticks and stones to guns and cannons and not to downplay cannons too much but in terms of useability and damage (unless you were a brick wall) wasn't the same kind of leagues different from catapults as even tanks are.

While I doubt the Founding Fathers would have been huge supporters of modern firearms to begin with, who knows there. Once you wander out small arms. . .I doubt they would need convincing that civilians shouldn't have armed helicopters or ICBMs. And if they would, oh well at least they'd be around to be part of the debate.

 

[patient1]

What about the French?

They had most of the cannons and ships of war helping the Americans.

They also provided most of the muskets and money, too. I've got to give credit where it's due.

My guess is that the French royalty came to reconsider the proposition while they were awaiting execution.

 

[Byron In Exile]

The Framers found it necessary to revise the language on several occasions, and it is still all the center of much debate.

There's no debate, really.

The answers are out there — you just don't like where they lead.

It never ceases to amaze me how someone clearly not a simpleton can be so simple about such things.

The language of the law is simple.