The big myth of the second amendment

We are a representative democracy. IT says so right on the goverments website.

WTFU. A democratic republic connotes DEMOCRACY. A representative democracy, constitutional republic, and democratic republic are the same thing.

We are a democracy, period. WE area liberal democracy, and have been since we had the vote.

 

I'll file that in the wishful thinking file

 

None of that is relevant to the OP.

Dude.

 

A standing army, in other words. Militias were amateurs, and as time wore on, the need for trained disciplined professionals became more and more evident, which goes to my point that the motivation for 2a is essentially moot, in the modern era.

 

It's been tried eleven times now and failed eleven times, there is so much court/legal/judgements and precedents in place now that no amount of hearing/talks or misinterpretation can change it's meaning now. The gun and 2cd amendment haters have dug them self a hole so deep now that there is know other angle to argue about the verbiage and it's meaning anymore..

In short, they be screwed

 

I don't do any wishing because I don't have a dog in the fight. If the 2A disappeared tomorrow it wouldn't change my life one iota. But I did for a time live and work among the academic history tribe and I understand their language.

 

No. Not a standing army -- the opposite of that, in fact.

 

Has our Government and our armed forces secured our borders today?

 

I'm pretty sure constitutional lawyers far more trained then you, have battled this out! In fact I'd say they have eleven times and I'm sure what you think you have, has been presented plus thousands of archived material that failed to change it.. But it does make a nice but boring thread to rehash and give constitutional desk professionals something to waste the day on

11 Times the Second Amendment was Attacked and Prevailed

Carry on..

 

Ironically, blacks are the greatest abusers of firearms.

 

Well that in itself proves you have no clue about the power of an armed citizenry. If you only take licensed hunters from WV and MI, they would make up the largest standing army in the world. You have about 1.2 million people in our current military, which under duress of a formed citizen revolt, would most likely lose almost half as they would not fire upon their own families or citizens. Every government knows this. Why wouldn't you? Because you prefer to wordsmith idiotic notions instead of being governed by fact.

Compared to over 400 million guns and 300 million gun owners, our military wouldn't have a chance against its own citizens if they decided to go to war against each other. Thats when the crying anti gun owners have their come to Jesus meetings.

 

Been hearing about this last few day.. Seems the residents of S. Carolina are “unorganized militia” militia by birthright and law.. Also several states including mine have adopted "State Law's" that exempt any mandate or law from the feds that contradict the SC ruling on the 2CD Amendment, "Second Amendment sanctuary, also known as a gun sanctuary,". Call your reps get them on board..

 

The U.S. military couldn't get it done in Nam and has yet to control the middle east.. Russian involvement with armed civilians resulted in the same failures and stalemate wars..

 

I live in N Carolina and live in a large Republican city. Our sheriff is the first Republican Sheriff ever elected to our county (Union) He has made it clear that his office will not abide by any state legislation that is in conflict with the 2nd as have many Sheriffs around the country.

But I do see your point. We need more people making those calls.

 

God love you and S. Carolina! We should all be so lucky to follow their lead!!

 

Admiral Yamamoto said, "You cannot invade the mainland United States. There would be a rifle behind every blade of grass.

You know how to tell when the anti gun nuts are losing ground about the 2nd, when they spend millions claiming Yamamoto never said that. Even though its been a historical fact supported by the Japanese for decades.

 

Yes it is. Denial of reality when it comes to the second amendment is very strong on the left.

 

I'm just saying, the two fronts that existed during the late 18th century, which gave rise to the second amendment, primarily southern states feared that if they ratified the constitution it would give the newly constituted federal government, with all the language in the constitution, 'all men are created equal" language which made southern plantation owners nervous, they feared that the new federal government would disarm their militias, which, in the south, were synonomous with slave patrols, so they bargained for the second amendment in order to ratify the constitution, that is, Virginia did, who was the 9th state needed to equal 2/3rds ( of 13 ). The 'armed citizenry' was less of a consideration, as time marched on, as noted by Hamilton, given that militias were amateurs, often drunk, would abandon their posts, unruly, etc, and no match for a continental army, such that, in short, the two fronts that give rise to the second amendment, the 'armed citizenry' and 'militia' are moot points in the modern era.

That was my only point.

 

More evidence that neither you nor the person you responded to really understand the second amendment or it's a antecedents.

The militia did not evolve into the National Guard was founded by the US government in order to create an adjunct to the army reserve system because the reserve was never adequate by itself during that time period.

 

Your continued points were never argued by any Federalist or Anti-Federalist. They are just opinion after the fact which leaves these arguments as a moot point.

The shift of power from the states to the federal government generated one of the chief objections to the proposed Constitution. Anti-Federalists argued that the proposed Constitution would take from the states their principal means of defense against federal usurpation. The Federalists responded that fears of federal oppression were overblown, in part because the American people were armed and would be almost impossible to subdue through military force.

Implicit in the debate between Federalists and Anti-Federalists were two shared assumptions. First, that the proposed new Constitution gave the federal government almost total legal authority over the army and militia. Second, that the federal government should not have any authority at all to disarm the citizenry. They disagreed only about whether an armed populace could adequately deter federal oppression.

There are no arguments from either side as to the 2nd amendment being in place to attribute to slave patrols or slavery. Since that was never a point of argument in its creation, your only explanations are that of opinion after the fact and bear no truth to the creation or support of the second amendment. Its just wordsmithing for a political end.

 

Nicely done, very interesting, well as fact general are!!

 

And it is wrong...

 

Incompetent rebuttal as I never claimed my statement was a rebuttal. I merely stated a fact that should, even in this increasingly dystopian country, an obvious fact. Before you can make one a slave you must first disarm him.

 

The militia was defined in the US in 1903 as it appears now in US Code (20 years before US Code was actually established). There was no slavery to protect after 1865, yet ~40 years later the militia was still defined to include ALL able bodied males between 18 and 45yoa. If it had been meant to protect slavery prior to 1903, it certainly was not thereafter.

 

Not if you stimulate the hell out of his economy.