7
7
0
First off, I support our 2nd Amendment rights to own weapons. I do want regulations in place just like our regulations on other licensed property such as cars, but at the core, I support our Bill of Rights and am a liberal member of the ACLU.<div><br></div><div>How do you interpret the 2nd Amendment?</div><div><br></div><div>Please don't quote anything from the NRA or your favorite gun rights advocate. I want to hear your opinions on the subject. Here is the text of the Amendment:</div><div><br></div><div>"<span style="color: rgb(37, 37, 37); font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 21px;">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.</span>"</div><div><br></div><div>Some people quibble about the comma, some link the right to keep and bear arms to the well regulated militia. Some say it means we can keep weapons to deter tyrants. There are a lot of interpretations, I want to hear yours. Do you feel it means weapon ownership should be absent any regulations? Why or why not? Do you think we can/should be able to own fully automatic weapons? Explosive weapons? Speak your mind and let's discuss!</div>
2nd Amendment
Weapons
Firearms and Guns
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 41
25
25
0
Why not look at what the founding fathers had to say about the right to bear arms and get an idea of what they had in mind:
"A free people ought to be armed."
- George Washington
"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms."
- Thomas Jefferson
"The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes.... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man."
- Thomas Jefferson (quoting 18th century criminologist Cesare Beccaria)
"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
"The Constitution of most of our states (and of the United States) assert that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed."
- Thomas Jefferson
"Arms in the hands of citizens may be used at individual discretion in private self defense."
- John Adams
"I ask sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people except for a few politicians."
- George Mason (father of the Bill of Rights and The Virginia Declaration of Rights)
"Americans have the right and advantage of being armed, unlike the people of other countries, whose leaders are afraid to trust them with arms."
- James Madison
"To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them."
- Richard Henry Lee
Should I keep going? Don't take my weapons. There is NO room for interpretation of this amendment. And it also doesn't say it should require background checks, limit the magazines, or any of that other crap.
"A free people ought to be armed."
- George Washington
"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms."
- Thomas Jefferson
"The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes.... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man."
- Thomas Jefferson (quoting 18th century criminologist Cesare Beccaria)
"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
"The Constitution of most of our states (and of the United States) assert that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed."
- Thomas Jefferson
"Arms in the hands of citizens may be used at individual discretion in private self defense."
- John Adams
"I ask sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people except for a few politicians."
- George Mason (father of the Bill of Rights and The Virginia Declaration of Rights)
"Americans have the right and advantage of being armed, unlike the people of other countries, whose leaders are afraid to trust them with arms."
- James Madison
"To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them."
- Richard Henry Lee
Should I keep going? Don't take my weapons. There is NO room for interpretation of this amendment. And it also doesn't say it should require background checks, limit the magazines, or any of that other crap.
(25)
(0)
MAJ Robert (Bob) Petrarca
Are we talking he 2nd Constitutional Amendment with this photo or the 2nd Marriage Commandment - Thou shalt never leave the toilet seat up? Either way, the eyes have it!
(2)
(0)
10
10
0
To understand the Second Amendment, I also look at the mindset and historical context that the Founding Fathers were working from. They had just won a war to gain freedom from what they felt was an oppressive monarchy. In my view they were afraid that someday some how things would go wrong and to allow people to protect themselves from not only the threats of the day since the country was pretty much a wild frontier in many areas, law enforcement wasn't an option they wanted the people to protect themselves, which also worked to keep the government honest since the people were back then at least as well armed as the government and probably outnumbered the government.
To use some of the quotes of Thomas Jefferson "When governments fear the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny."
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."
This leads me to conclude that it was intended as the check and balance on the government by the people, because after all that they went through led them to be distrustful of government even as they were creating it.
To use some of the quotes of Thomas Jefferson "When governments fear the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny."
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."
This leads me to conclude that it was intended as the check and balance on the government by the people, because after all that they went through led them to be distrustful of government even as they were creating it.
(10)
(0)
SPC (Join to see)
Why is this even debated? "Shall not be infringed!" its simple! You have your divine right to protect yourself, and if you choose not to do so with a rifle or gun, than thats your choice as well. As for me, I would rather have it and not need it than need it and not have it!
(3)
(0)
CW3 Kevin Storm
Be careful quoting Jefferson:
Every constitution, then, and every law, naturally expires at the end of nineteen years. If it be enforced longer, it is an act of force, and not of right. It may be said, that the succeeding generation exercising, in fact, the power of repeal, this leaves them as free as if the constitution or law had been expressly limited to nineteen years only. In the first place, this objection admits the right, in proposing an equivalent. But the power of repeal is not an equivalent. It might be, indeed, if every form of government were so perfectly contrived, that the will of the majority could always be obtained, fairly and without impediment. But this is true of no form. The people cannot assemble themselves; their representation is unequal and vicious. Various checks are opposed to every legislative proposition. Factions get possession of the public councils, bribery corrupts them, personal interests lead them astray from the general interests of their constituents; and other impediments arise, so as to prove to every practical man, that a law of limited duration is much more manageable than one which needs a repeal." --Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, 1789. ME 7:459, Papers 15:396
Every constitution, then, and every law, naturally expires at the end of nineteen years. If it be enforced longer, it is an act of force, and not of right. It may be said, that the succeeding generation exercising, in fact, the power of repeal, this leaves them as free as if the constitution or law had been expressly limited to nineteen years only. In the first place, this objection admits the right, in proposing an equivalent. But the power of repeal is not an equivalent. It might be, indeed, if every form of government were so perfectly contrived, that the will of the majority could always be obtained, fairly and without impediment. But this is true of no form. The people cannot assemble themselves; their representation is unequal and vicious. Various checks are opposed to every legislative proposition. Factions get possession of the public councils, bribery corrupts them, personal interests lead them astray from the general interests of their constituents; and other impediments arise, so as to prove to every practical man, that a law of limited duration is much more manageable than one which needs a repeal." --Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, 1789. ME 7:459, Papers 15:396
(0)
(0)
SSG Gerhard S.
It is not our job to interpret the 2nd amendment. The intent was made clear by those who argued for its inclusion. Any further machinations to limit it's meaning are simply trying to squeeze some meaning out of the words that aren't there.
Indeed, those who argued against it did so with the idea that the right of the people to be armed was SO self evident, that including this language in the bill of rights was superfluous. Lucky for us, the cautious among the framers won out.
Indeed, those who argued against it did so with the idea that the right of the people to be armed was SO self evident, that including this language in the bill of rights was superfluous. Lucky for us, the cautious among the framers won out.
(0)
(0)
9
9
0
I think it truly was intended, and still is today, to allow people to arm themselves in the event that they needed to fight an invader or their own government. Keeping in mind that the constitution was written by a government and by people who were tired of their governmental persecution and tyranny.
Further, I've heard the argument that "it won't happen in America". Nobody is immune from tyranny. Look through history and you will find even the greatest nations have had issues and such struggles.
SO, unarmed people cannot form a well regulated militia if they have no access to arms. What we see when a government wants to limit or do away with these rights, is EXACTLY why this amendment was written. Governments try to "policy" people into submission by attempting to control EVERYTHING and taking away people's ability to succeed or fail on their own.
On a side note and for example, our society has become so lackadaisical in responsibility that you can literally walk away from real life and still receive a paycheck and healthcare. What sort of incentive is there to succeed? In an effort to fund this, the government(s) demand more tax money...and people get mad.... and then they take more.... and the cycle repeats itself.
A system that commands dependents, stays in power.
Further, I've heard the argument that "it won't happen in America". Nobody is immune from tyranny. Look through history and you will find even the greatest nations have had issues and such struggles.
SO, unarmed people cannot form a well regulated militia if they have no access to arms. What we see when a government wants to limit or do away with these rights, is EXACTLY why this amendment was written. Governments try to "policy" people into submission by attempting to control EVERYTHING and taking away people's ability to succeed or fail on their own.
On a side note and for example, our society has become so lackadaisical in responsibility that you can literally walk away from real life and still receive a paycheck and healthcare. What sort of incentive is there to succeed? In an effort to fund this, the government(s) demand more tax money...and people get mad.... and then they take more.... and the cycle repeats itself.
A system that commands dependents, stays in power.
(9)
(0)
Sgt (Join to see)
Agree, a double standard for everything. However, I don't put a lot of stock into such lawsuits as they will likely not pan out. Anyone can sue anyone else for anything, just depends on if the court accepts it and/or sides w/ the plaintiff.
I'm curious what will happen in this instance what, if anything, will be paid out. As I've always understood it, Fire and Police Depts don't have any legal obligation to risk their own safety in the course of their work. I know this goes against the common understanding of public services.
He may win part of the suit, however, for negligence IF they endangered him more, in the course of their actions.
I've heard people, not from America, criticize the amount of silly policies that American society has. Your examples are a perfect case in point of contradictions.
I'm curious what will happen in this instance what, if anything, will be paid out. As I've always understood it, Fire and Police Depts don't have any legal obligation to risk their own safety in the course of their work. I know this goes against the common understanding of public services.
He may win part of the suit, however, for negligence IF they endangered him more, in the course of their actions.
I've heard people, not from America, criticize the amount of silly policies that American society has. Your examples are a perfect case in point of contradictions.
(1)
(0)
LTC (Join to see)
there's also Good Samaritan laws in most states that protects people from lawsuits....this lawyer's interpretation of mistake=negligence is pretty close-minded and the mistake only=negligence if it can be proven that a harm occurred. I would argue that in this case(w/o knowing all the facts) there was no harm committed or, at least, none can be proven satisfactorily....his medical bills sounds pretty inflated and i can't imagine what injuries he would have sustained that cost that much. Of course if he's arguing trauma I'd argue he created his own trauma when he drove into the water covered roadway. In any event, I'll lay odds he gets nowhere and Good Samaritan laws will kick in and make this another waste of time and money...too bad we don't charge the loser fees for losing a court case
(1)
(0)
SSG (Join to see)
Sir, I agree. My wife and I have been discussing this. We both are sickened at all these ridiculous lawsuits. While Good Samaritan laws are in place in many areas, people will STILL sue. These lawsuits need to be dismissed with extreme prejudice and the plaintiff made to pay ALL court costs to include fees for the defendants. Maybe it'll help to stem this pandemic of suing at the first sign of issues, as well as these greedy shysters.
(2)
(0)
8
8
0
The second amendment is a basic civil right. It functions to allow for the God given right of self defense. It also functions as part of the check and balance system built into our Constitution. Title 10 of the United States Code provides for the militia that is not otherwise associated with the active duty, reserve, and national guard military. This militia is individual male Citizens acting as a check and balance against the government to keep it honest.
Once government starts attempting to restrict ownership of military service rifles then become very afraid that it is a government that lusts for power not granted to it by the Citizens it is was established to serve.
It was this Citizens militia that first fought the revolutionary war and it is this same Citizens militia standing by to restore the Constitutional form of government should it ever usurp unauthorized power to a point the Citizens no longer tolerate.
For the record Arms do indeed include any type of weapon or defense needed to prevent or subdue a tyrannical government, so they are not limited arbitrarily by administrations who fear the Citizens they were elected to serve.
Once government starts attempting to restrict ownership of military service rifles then become very afraid that it is a government that lusts for power not granted to it by the Citizens it is was established to serve.
It was this Citizens militia that first fought the revolutionary war and it is this same Citizens militia standing by to restore the Constitutional form of government should it ever usurp unauthorized power to a point the Citizens no longer tolerate.
For the record Arms do indeed include any type of weapon or defense needed to prevent or subdue a tyrannical government, so they are not limited arbitrarily by administrations who fear the Citizens they were elected to serve.
(8)
(0)
Cpl (Join to see)
It already happened when the government said we could not purchase our service rifles. We are not allowed more than semi automatic with out saying ATF can raid your home any time they feel like it on top of the costs fingerprints and registration.
(2)
(0)
7
7
0
This is how my Criminal Law professor broke it down:
A well regulated Militia- The National Guard
being necessary to the security of a free State- State being a territory (State of NJ)States have their own Sovereignty
the right of the people -those members of the Militia(NG)
to keep and bear arms- have weapons
shall not be infringed- regulated by law
Now this was when I was 19 yrs old, and didn't know how to counter attack this. Now fast forward 13 yrs with a little experience and philosophy. I said a little,
I think that when our forefathers wrote this their thought was:
A well regulated militia (a group of people who are not part of the armed forces of a country but are trained like soldiers; the whole body of able-bodied male citizens declared by law as being subject to call to military service )
being necessary to the security of a free State-(a way of living or existing) the territory;
the right of the people- considering the definition of "militia" and people (the body of enfranchised citizens of a state ) EVERYONE
shall not be infringed- to wrongly limit or restrict (something, such as another person's rights)
Consider the Civil War, the South wanted to pull from the Union, If another State such as Pennsylvania attacked New Jersey, would it not benefit us if someone had a belt fed machine gun or fully automatic weapon?
Lets look at Switzerland, why have the been able to remain Neutral all these years? I have seen some interesting documentaries that state there is a rifle for every able male in every single house hold, therefore in the beginning of Hitler's Reich, this would have been too much of a resistance for him too soon. Also they have shown farmers who maintain artillery pieces sighted in on predetermined positions....Artillery pieces! and yet I cant have a collapsible stock on my AR! The Swiss also have underground bunkers and hospitals. They are the definition of "Si Vis Pacem Para Bellum"
How about Iraq, we occupied the country and they were allowed to have a legit "assault weapon" but we the United States, are not?
And lets not forget most of all....No matter how many laws you pass or how many weapons you ban or restrict, Criminals will still get what they want because criminals do not obey the law.
A well regulated Militia- The National Guard
being necessary to the security of a free State- State being a territory (State of NJ)States have their own Sovereignty
the right of the people -those members of the Militia(NG)
to keep and bear arms- have weapons
shall not be infringed- regulated by law
Now this was when I was 19 yrs old, and didn't know how to counter attack this. Now fast forward 13 yrs with a little experience and philosophy. I said a little,
I think that when our forefathers wrote this their thought was:
A well regulated militia (a group of people who are not part of the armed forces of a country but are trained like soldiers; the whole body of able-bodied male citizens declared by law as being subject to call to military service )
being necessary to the security of a free State-(a way of living or existing) the territory;
the right of the people- considering the definition of "militia" and people (the body of enfranchised citizens of a state ) EVERYONE
shall not be infringed- to wrongly limit or restrict (something, such as another person's rights)
Consider the Civil War, the South wanted to pull from the Union, If another State such as Pennsylvania attacked New Jersey, would it not benefit us if someone had a belt fed machine gun or fully automatic weapon?
Lets look at Switzerland, why have the been able to remain Neutral all these years? I have seen some interesting documentaries that state there is a rifle for every able male in every single house hold, therefore in the beginning of Hitler's Reich, this would have been too much of a resistance for him too soon. Also they have shown farmers who maintain artillery pieces sighted in on predetermined positions....Artillery pieces! and yet I cant have a collapsible stock on my AR! The Swiss also have underground bunkers and hospitals. They are the definition of "Si Vis Pacem Para Bellum"
How about Iraq, we occupied the country and they were allowed to have a legit "assault weapon" but we the United States, are not?
And lets not forget most of all....No matter how many laws you pass or how many weapons you ban or restrict, Criminals will still get what they want because criminals do not obey the law.
(7)
(0)
SSG (Join to see)
SFC Blagojevich, I concur with MAJ Ballinger your professor has it dead wrong. Your overall comment though is pretty decent especially the very last paragraph. That simple fact is what truly eludes those who are against freedom.
(1)
(0)
LTC Paul Labrador
Could have also thrown out the definition of "militia" as stated by Title 10, which is essentially any able bodied male who is not currently enlisted in the standing military. So by extrapolation, the militia is "everybody".
(1)
(0)
SFC (Join to see)
I find it difficult to understand the parallel he drew from "shall not be infringed" to "regulated by law." If anyone could clear that up for me...
(0)
(0)
1SG (Join to see)
Maj Ballinger,
No, this was in 2002, like I said, I was 19 at the time and didn't know how to counter attack his thought then.
No, this was in 2002, like I said, I was 19 at the time and didn't know how to counter attack his thought then.
(0)
(0)
7
7
0
I already commented, but I want to add one more thing for consideration. The 2nd Amendment has been under the microscope a little more than usual recently because of certain, largely media publicized and/or violent events.
Something to keep in mind is that doing away with the 2nd, or a right to bear arms, will NOT disarm the criminals who commit 99.9% of gun crime and won't stop people from conducting mass killings.
Unless you are in a gang, selling drugs, or near either one of those, you are likely NOT to become a victim of it. Watch your 6. Protect your house and surroundings. Bad guys like soft targets.
Something to keep in mind is that doing away with the 2nd, or a right to bear arms, will NOT disarm the criminals who commit 99.9% of gun crime and won't stop people from conducting mass killings.
Unless you are in a gang, selling drugs, or near either one of those, you are likely NOT to become a victim of it. Watch your 6. Protect your house and surroundings. Bad guys like soft targets.
(7)
(0)
1LT (Join to see)
SSG Redondo,
While not attempting to hijack the thread, I would say that even though you might not be formally trained to pilot an aircraft (I do have my fixed wing license and about 5 hours of OH-58A/C time when I was a cadet), there is nothing to say that you couldn't fly it without violating the rights of others.
Actually, that can dovetail into the firearms discussion still - although I highly advocate getting the best training you can, arbitrary training requirements shouldn't be required in order to be able to defend yourself, as there is nothing to say an individual couldn't educate/train themselves in the use of firearms so they aren't negligent.
...hopefully this train isn't off its tracks.
While not attempting to hijack the thread, I would say that even though you might not be formally trained to pilot an aircraft (I do have my fixed wing license and about 5 hours of OH-58A/C time when I was a cadet), there is nothing to say that you couldn't fly it without violating the rights of others.
Actually, that can dovetail into the firearms discussion still - although I highly advocate getting the best training you can, arbitrary training requirements shouldn't be required in order to be able to defend yourself, as there is nothing to say an individual couldn't educate/train themselves in the use of firearms so they aren't negligent.
...hopefully this train isn't off its tracks.
(3)
(0)
SSG (Join to see)
Sir, I can mostly agree with that but it does still go back to responsibility and accountability. Yes, I can make the choice to TRY to fly a plane. I say try because I honestly have very little knowledge on piloting an aircraft although I would do my best to just figure it out. Despite that though, it would still be irresponsible of me to TRY without proper supervision. Now we can extrapolate so many different scenarios but for the sake of the thread I'll stick to the two most relevant ones. First, if there are passengers on the plane then I am most definitely negligent since I do not have the proper training to SAFELY operate an aircraft. Even if I actually do take-off, fly and land safely, I am still negligent in my responsibility and must be held accountable.
The second scenario is not quite as catastrophic but it still has potential. If I was by myself, no one else in the plane, I am still negligent since I am putting others (on the ground) in jeopardy if I should happen to crash. If that case also, I am irresponsible and must be held accountable. Regardless of either scenario, the fault is NOT with the plane but solely with MY choices and actions. I posit that with both scenarios I would be violating the rights of others to life since I would have unduly put THEIR lives in danger through my negligence.
The same can be said of firearms.
I most definitely agree with receiving additional training and education. It goes back to being responsible which so many don't understand. When I decided to take up the shooting sports many years ago, I knew there could be dire consequences if I misused any firearm I touched. I learned through others, especially the SF NCOs, various methods of safety and shooting techniques. Later on when I decided to conceal carry, I elevated my awareness and training. I won't go into details since this is a public forum because i don't discuss certain things as such.
The second scenario is not quite as catastrophic but it still has potential. If I was by myself, no one else in the plane, I am still negligent since I am putting others (on the ground) in jeopardy if I should happen to crash. If that case also, I am irresponsible and must be held accountable. Regardless of either scenario, the fault is NOT with the plane but solely with MY choices and actions. I posit that with both scenarios I would be violating the rights of others to life since I would have unduly put THEIR lives in danger through my negligence.
The same can be said of firearms.
I most definitely agree with receiving additional training and education. It goes back to being responsible which so many don't understand. When I decided to take up the shooting sports many years ago, I knew there could be dire consequences if I misused any firearm I touched. I learned through others, especially the SF NCOs, various methods of safety and shooting techniques. Later on when I decided to conceal carry, I elevated my awareness and training. I won't go into details since this is a public forum because i don't discuss certain things as such.
(0)
(0)
SSG (Join to see)
Sir, that is exactly the point. Sounds nefariously and insidiously like Minority Report.
(1)
(0)
5
5
0
I interpret it as a mandate for all able bodied citizens of sound mind, to own, maintain and drill with their arms of choice... That in the event of tyranny, injustice or invasion, the people can rise up in defense of the people of this great nation...
(5)
(0)
Cpl (Join to see)
Well said sir Well said, I just think we should have the choice to train and not be restricted to what people paying for armed body guards that pass laws carry while they expect the rest of us to shut up and comply with everything passed and have no voice
(0)
(0)
SPC Elijah J. Henry, MBA
CW2 Joseph Evans, I unfortunately find myself fresh out of up-votes.
The Constitutional Militia is the single most neglected and misunderstood institution in our Republic.
The Constitutional Militia is the single most neglected and misunderstood institution in our Republic.
(1)
(0)
5
5
0
As I was given to understand, the 2nd Amendment was put in so that we, as Americans, could defend ourselves against anyone trying to take over. Remember when this was written.
(5)
(0)
Sgt (Join to see)
Yeah, it literally was written to allow the people to fight back against anyone... invader or their own government (keeping in mind who our founders were, and why they came here)
(1)
(0)
4
4
0
How I read it: A well armed population being necessary to prevent intrusive oppressive government, the right of the people to own and carry arms shall not be infringed.
(4)
(0)
4
4
0
Fortunately I live in a State that has taken the Constitution and has passed legislation that declares the County Sheriff is the supreme law enforcement official and mandates that they arrest any person working for a federal agency that attempts to enforce any rules or policies that run counter to the 2nd Amendment. As a retired Law Enforcement Officer, I can, and do carry everywhere.
I totally agree with Maj. Carl B. Heller Rules!
I totally agree with Maj. Carl B. Heller Rules!
(4)
(0)
MAJ Jim Woods
I gotta' agree with LT. Gillman.
The Constitution and and Amendments were not developed to limit States rights but to insure that the Federal Government does not infringe on individual rights. That is exactly why the United States was inhabited. By people that didn't agree with British rule and came to this country to get away from a Government that infringed on everyone. In fact, the individual States were all basically Republics until the Continental Congress convened (1789 - almost 15 years after declaring their independence from Britain) and brought them together to fight off any force that tried to impose their rule on us.
All of the Amendments were specifically designed to limit the power and authority of the Federal Government over States and Individuals.
The Constitution and and Amendments were not developed to limit States rights but to insure that the Federal Government does not infringe on individual rights. That is exactly why the United States was inhabited. By people that didn't agree with British rule and came to this country to get away from a Government that infringed on everyone. In fact, the individual States were all basically Republics until the Continental Congress convened (1789 - almost 15 years after declaring their independence from Britain) and brought them together to fight off any force that tried to impose their rule on us.
All of the Amendments were specifically designed to limit the power and authority of the Federal Government over States and Individuals.
(3)
(0)
Cpl Benjamin Long
If one has a right to defend themselves... what bearing would the fact that one flees from in this instance "Britain" is not fighting... It is an egress from a more powerful opponent. As far as the fight in the Revolutionary war, three victories in the entire war means they just got tired of beating the crap out of us.... We never fought off anyone during the war more so than bored them to tears in the fact that their victory would be hollow.... If you are using that as an argument then you are stating that we are strong because we can take a beating and not give one....
(0)
(0)
MSgt John McGowan
MAJ. I do believe the Sheriff in my county is the high law officer. I have known him a long time and sked him what he would do if it came to the day. His reply was he ws following the Constitution so there will be no gun take up in our county.
(1)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google