At the time of the writing of the constitution,did the MILITIA not exist primarily of private citizens? If you look at the time the constitution was written and the fact that we were fighting the government in power (the British) ,it would seem to me that the right to keep and bear arms is in the private citizen's hands,even unto the end of bearing them against an oppressive government (read the preamble to the constitution). In my oppinion,a miltia is NOT an armed force paid by the State or Federal Govt.,but the private citizen in protection of his home and his welfare.

At the time of the writing of the constitution,did the MILITIA not exist primarily of private citizens? If you look at the time the constitution was written and the fact that we were fighting the government in power (the British) ,it would seem to me that the right to keep and bear arms is in the private citizen's hands,even unto the end of bearing them against an oppressive government (read the preamble to the constitution). In my oppinion,a miltia is NOT an armed force paid by the State or Federal Govt.,but the private citizen in protection of his home and his welfare.

 

You are aware that the revolutionary war had been over several years before the constitution was written? The government in power was the government of the individual states, linked under a very loose confederation. The constitution was written to strengthen the central government while at the same time protecting individual rights. The Bill of Rights, including the second amendment was not part of the constitution as written. The first ten amendments were added very quickly to ease the concerns of those who felt that a central government was a threat to individual liberty.

You are aware that the revolutionary war had been over several years before the constitution was written? The government in power was the government of the individual states, linked under a very loose confederation. The constitution was written to strengthen the central government while at the same time protecting individual rights. The Bill of Rights, including the second amendment was not part of the constitution as written. The first ten amendments were added very quickly to ease the concerns of those who felt that a central government was a threat to individual liberty.

 

Of course we weren't fighting the British at that time, but it would be disingenuous to suggest that that episode hadn't weighed heavily on the minds of the founders.

 

“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.”

 

As far as this text, it could certainly go either way in my belief. It could either mean that the definition of a well regulated militia is that of people keeping arms, or it could mean in addition to a militia, the people can bear arms. Either way, from my perspective, the right of the citizenry to wield weapons is undeniable. If the Supreme Court could manage to find the right of privacy in the Constitution, surely they can find the right for citizens to own weapons.

 

I believe the government can certainly regulate this right, as most others. But the point is, the government should be beholden to the people, and if the military is an arm of the government, the people have no way of absolute reconciliation if the situation warranted it. Despite its location, the United States government could very really become the British government of the American Revolution.

 

Personally, I own guns. I don’t hunt, unless pried by family members, and I’m in no need of additional protection as I live in a nice area (of course, when I move to a new area I certainly may need additional protection) and I can handle myself in public. It is simply a matter of principle to me.

Of course we weren't fighting the British at that time, but it would be disingenuous to suggest that that episode hadn't weighed heavily on the minds of the founders.

 

“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.”

 

As far as this text, it could certainly go either way in my belief. It could either mean that the definition of a well regulated militia is that of people keeping arms, or it could mean in addition to a militia, the people can bear arms. Either way, from my perspective, the right of the citizenry to wield weapons is undeniable. If the Supreme Court could manage to find the right of privacy in the Constitution, surely they can find the right for citizens to own weapons.

 

I believe the government can certainly regulate this right, as most others. But the point is, the government should be beholden to the people, and if the military is an arm of the government, the people have no way of absolute reconciliation if the situation warranted it. Despite its location, the United States government could very really become the British government of the American Revolution.

 

Personally, I own guns. I don’t hunt, unless pried by family members, and I’m in no need of additional protection as I live in a nice area (of course, when I move to a new area I certainly may need additional protection) and I can handle myself in public. It is simply a matter of principle to me.

 

Yeah, what he said.

 

 

Although, to be fair I am not entirely sure how effective our armed citizenry would be against the U.S. Military were martial law to be declared. It's great that I can own an FN-FAL or an AR-15, but neither of them are stopping a Bradley, Striker or Abrahms.

Yeah, what he said.

 

 

Although, to be fair I am not entirely sure how effective our armed citizenry would be against the U.S. Military were martial law to be declared. It's great that I can own an FN-FAL or an AR-15, but neither of them are stopping a Bradley, Striker or Abrahms.

 

They did pretty well in Red Dawn against the USSR and Mexican military.

They did pretty well in Red Dawn against the USSR and Mexican military.

 

 

Well if we have Patrick Swayze and Charlie Sheen to lead us I change my stance.

They did pretty well in Red Dawn against the USSR and Mexican military.

 

Actually it was Cuban. The recent influx of immigrants must have made you forget the nationality. :lol:

If you think that guns are the problem, then you need to take a look at Switzerland's gun laws.

Those who hammer their guns into plows,

will plow for those who don't.

You are aware that the revolutionary war had been over several years before the constitution was written? The government in power was the government of the individual states, linked under a very loose confederation. The constitution was written to strengthen the central government while at the same time protecting individual rights. The Bill of Rights, including the second amendment was not part of the constitution as written. The first ten amendments were added very quickly to ease the concerns of those who felt that a central government was a threat to individual liberty.

 

And those concerns have been proven to be right OVER AND OVER again!!

Those who hammer their guns into plows,

will plow for those who don't.

 

 

:lol::lol::lol::lol::lol:

If you think that guns are the problem, then you need to take a look at Switzerland's gun laws.

 

 

That hadn't occurred to me at first, but you're right. In fact I wish I was as well armed as your average Swiss civilian. :irked:

We MUST protect our rights!!

 

 

 

 

:laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh: