In order to participate in the GunBroker Member forums, you must be logged in with your GunBroker.com account. Click the sign-in button at the top right of the forums page to get connected.
The 2nd amendment is actually a 3 part statement.
MMOMEQ-55
Member Posts: 13,134
I really think this man gets it. Very well put sir!
The 2nd amendment is actually a 3 part statement.
The 1st in giving the States the right to a "well-regulated Militia"
(note: by definition, well regulated in the 1700's meant "well
supplied") and the 2nd in giving the right to keep and bear arms to
individuals (no qualifiers). The 3rd part, the last 4 words that say it all,
SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.
"The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear
arms, is as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in
government." T Jefferson
That being said, there are many people today, who have a deep, (and a
legitimate), distrust of the government. They believe that it is in the nature
of governments to accumulate and to concentrate more and more power over
people's lives. More power leads to more control. It has always been so. As Lord
Acton so famously stated, "Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts
absolutely." Meaning that those who are given power over others will use
that power.
Even if the government is not specifically intending to do so, it is the nature
of large governments that this occurs.
Now the government may espouse their desire to help the citizenry, but when
individuals disagree with what the government determines is in their best
interest, then those in power use coercion. Sometimes subtle sometimes not so
subtle.
This concentration of power and increasing coercion can be gradual (like slowly
turning up the heat on a lobster in a pot), or sudden (like dropping him into
boiling water).
One need only be a casual student of history to see the process at work again
and again and again.
The Second Amendment is *our* guarantee that this loss of individual freedom
and increasing control of our lives cannot be done with impunity.
One need only look at what is occurring in Syria today or in Mexico, or any of
a dozen other locations around the globe .to see examples of what happens when
the government controls the people and when the people are defenseless to
resist.
Now you may feel that this distrust is not warranted, or that it verges on
paranoia. Many might agree with you. However many more, would not.
The Founding Fathers believed fervently that ordinary citizens needed to be
protected from an oppressive government. If they had not, then there would not
have been a Second Amendment in the first instance. They were very distrustful
of the concentration of power into the hands of the few. They set up safeguards
through the concepts of Separation of Powers and Federalism to prevent it from
happening. They added further protections in the Bill of Rights.
The Founding Fathers, I am certain, would be aghast at the degree to which the
government controls the lives of Americans today. Indeed, they went into
rebellion over transgressions less onerous than what we today have allowed to
be imposed upon us.
Read the Declaration of Independence. Look at the reasons that are enumerated there.
They speak of an oppressive government seeking to impose its will, (unlawfully
in their opinion), upon the citizenry.
The Second Amendment was NEVER about what type of arms citizens might own or about
what the technological developments of the future might bring. It was not about
hunting. It was not about home defense. It was not about target shooting. It
was about the ability of citizens to oppose and resist the oppression of a
tyrannical government. There are those Americans that honestly feel that this
point of view is not applicable to the 21st century; that such concerns are the
things of history. They label those like myself, as 'gun nuts' or as paranoid,
even dangerous.
If you are one that believes that this distrust is stuff out of a dusty history
book, and has no relevance in the 21st century, then I urge you again to look
around more carefully. Those of us that support the Second Amendment feel that its
relevance is as valid now as it was when it was first penned.
The 2nd amendment is actually a 3 part statement.
The 1st in giving the States the right to a "well-regulated Militia"
(note: by definition, well regulated in the 1700's meant "well
supplied") and the 2nd in giving the right to keep and bear arms to
individuals (no qualifiers). The 3rd part, the last 4 words that say it all,
SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.
"The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear
arms, is as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in
government." T Jefferson
That being said, there are many people today, who have a deep, (and a
legitimate), distrust of the government. They believe that it is in the nature
of governments to accumulate and to concentrate more and more power over
people's lives. More power leads to more control. It has always been so. As Lord
Acton so famously stated, "Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts
absolutely." Meaning that those who are given power over others will use
that power.
Even if the government is not specifically intending to do so, it is the nature
of large governments that this occurs.
Now the government may espouse their desire to help the citizenry, but when
individuals disagree with what the government determines is in their best
interest, then those in power use coercion. Sometimes subtle sometimes not so
subtle.
This concentration of power and increasing coercion can be gradual (like slowly
turning up the heat on a lobster in a pot), or sudden (like dropping him into
boiling water).
One need only be a casual student of history to see the process at work again
and again and again.
The Second Amendment is *our* guarantee that this loss of individual freedom
and increasing control of our lives cannot be done with impunity.
One need only look at what is occurring in Syria today or in Mexico, or any of
a dozen other locations around the globe .to see examples of what happens when
the government controls the people and when the people are defenseless to
resist.
Now you may feel that this distrust is not warranted, or that it verges on
paranoia. Many might agree with you. However many more, would not.
The Founding Fathers believed fervently that ordinary citizens needed to be
protected from an oppressive government. If they had not, then there would not
have been a Second Amendment in the first instance. They were very distrustful
of the concentration of power into the hands of the few. They set up safeguards
through the concepts of Separation of Powers and Federalism to prevent it from
happening. They added further protections in the Bill of Rights.
The Founding Fathers, I am certain, would be aghast at the degree to which the
government controls the lives of Americans today. Indeed, they went into
rebellion over transgressions less onerous than what we today have allowed to
be imposed upon us.
Read the Declaration of Independence. Look at the reasons that are enumerated there.
They speak of an oppressive government seeking to impose its will, (unlawfully
in their opinion), upon the citizenry.
The Second Amendment was NEVER about what type of arms citizens might own or about
what the technological developments of the future might bring. It was not about
hunting. It was not about home defense. It was not about target shooting. It
was about the ability of citizens to oppose and resist the oppression of a
tyrannical government. There are those Americans that honestly feel that this
point of view is not applicable to the 21st century; that such concerns are the
things of history. They label those like myself, as 'gun nuts' or as paranoid,
even dangerous.
If you are one that believes that this distrust is stuff out of a dusty history
book, and has no relevance in the 21st century, then I urge you again to look
around more carefully. Those of us that support the Second Amendment feel that its
relevance is as valid now as it was when it was first penned.
Comments
b0z0s trying to change all that [:(!]
You gonna take it?
Outstanding post, thanks for sharing. Going to print this out and pass it around.
Thank you, I Have been sending this to everyone I know.
quote:Originally posted by Cornflk1
Outstanding post, thanks for sharing. Going to print this out and pass it around.
Thank you, I Have been sending this to everyone I know.
Do you mind If I steal it for another forum?
Always amazing how those sworn to uphold the Constitution constantly try to change it.
But well regulated did not mean well supplied it meant well functioning.
Meaning is and was well supplied and well trained; properly operating.
And fiery auto crashes
Some will die in hot pursuit
While sifting through my ashes
Some will fall in love with life
And drink it from a fountain
That is pouring like an avalanche
Coming down the mountain
serf
http://www.englisch-hilfen.de/en/inhalt_grammar.htm
quote:Originally posted by Waco Waltz
But well regulated did not mean well supplied it meant well functioning.
Meaning is and was well supplied and well trained; properly operating.
NO specifically it means well drilled or functioning. If it only meant well supplied it would state well provisioned.
quote:Originally posted by Mr. Perfect
quote:Originally posted by Waco Waltz
But well regulated did not mean well supplied it meant well functioning.
Meaning is and was well supplied and well trained; properly operating.
NO specifically it means well drilled or functioning. If it only meant well supplied it would state well provisioned.
Failed to read what I wrote?
And fiery auto crashes
Some will die in hot pursuit
While sifting through my ashes
Some will fall in love with life
And drink it from a fountain
That is pouring like an avalanche
Coming down the mountain
The Second Amendment was NEVER about what type of arms citizens might own or about what the technological developments of the future might bring.
People often claim that the Second Amendment doesn't protect the right to own [insert modern gun], because the Founding Fathers did not anticipate that amount of firepower being in the hands of average citizens. Yet few would suggest that the Fourth Amendment doesn't apply to computers or telephones.
quote:Originally posted by MMOMEQ-55
The Second Amendment was NEVER about what type of arms citizens might own or about what the technological developments of the future might bring.
People often claim that the Second Amendment doesn't protect the right to own [insert modern gun], because the Founding Fathers did not anticipate that amount of firepower being in the hands of average citizens. Yet few would suggest that the Fourth Amendment doesn't apply to computers or telephones.
People decide what a certain amendments mean according to their agendas. The ones trying to ban guns would be the first to yell out if someone decided that what was said on their phones was not private. Funny how some peoples minds work.
quote:Originally posted by Waco Waltz
quote:Originally posted by Mr. Perfect
quote:Originally posted by Waco Waltz
But well regulated did not mean well supplied it meant well functioning.
Meaning is and was well supplied and well trained; properly operating.
NO specifically it means well drilled or functioning. If it only meant well supplied it would state well provisioned.
Failed to read what I wrote?
I read what you wrote. Did you fail to understand you basically agreed with me but wanted to still be right so you expanded on the meaning to include function as well as supplied?
Let me say it again, regulated at the time meant well drilled and or functioning. TO be well functioning being well provisioned is a given that went without saying.