I say youre misreading it,, the free State Of the People.,,is what we are intended to maintain. Understand the Fathers whole goal in the Big C was to limit the goobs & keep the power in the hands of the people,,


Remember, they understood what a tyrannical government is.

Hey thats means we can shoot the members of congress.

justin_o_guy2 wrote on 07/24/12 at 11:36:27:


All of it counts... ... but what part says the people should be armed to fight against their own elected government?...
The second amendment don't...

"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."

At the time they wrote this,.. they didn't intend for a standing army...
The world changed... Tanks, missiles, planes, drones, satellites, were invented... and a standing army became a necessity for our security.
They did intend on a standing navy,.... because even at that time, civilians couldn't be expected to maintain battleships...
They didn't foresee an air force either,... but it is now necessary...

A civilian militia is an obsolete concept...  It is used as a justification, nothing more...
We do still have the right to our weapons,.. for private, legal use...
As they intended...
... but the concept of a civilian militia became obsolete when we developed our standing army...

It is no longer realistic... the founders would see that now...
The world has changed, and the Constitution no longer even makes sense today, without interpretation of their intent...
Slavery is gone,.. blacks vote,.. women vote,... we have a standing army and air force...
All this is due to interpretation of the intent of the Constitution.
None of it was spelled out literally...
The world continues spinning, no matter how hard you dig in your heels...

You are simply incorrect. WE, the people, are meant to be armed not for self defense, or hunting,, at the time it was written, these things were simply taken for granted,,a man HAD to ready to protect himself from thugs & sundry other threats,Hunting was a part of life, no license needed,,They intended us to be armed to shrug off a Tyrannical Government, & thats how it is, Ill find what I have to find to show y0ou, but Im busy outside now, I just came in to grab a bite & cool off,,
Fuel pump on the 87 F150 is sounding bad, so, Im changing it,, Aaaand guess what? The fuel is showing signs of going bad,, beads of water showing up,, its murky looking,, I guess thats what happens when  guy drives one so little the gas sits in the tank for a year.,

Are you saying that quote is from the Constitution?... ...

That's from the Declaration of Independence...  
They are referring to England...
It is a letter that the founders sent to England to declare their independence...
(to announce that they were committing treason, basically)... ...

Whatever... but it ain't "the Big C"....
Have you ever actually read,.. The US Constitution?...
I doubt it...

These are two different documents with two different purposes, and intended for two different audiences...
The declaration is speaking to the King of England...
The Constitution is speaking to the American people...

I know this stuff, and I'm not even born here...

"That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government."

Now let me get this right.... When the government becomes destructive, by say invading and occupying other sovereign nations in other parts of the world, or perhaps by cutting social security and denying it's people healthcare, then we the armed squirrel hunters and target shooter citizens can sort of get together and I donn'o maybe defeat the combined armed forces of the United States, charter some buses, go to Washington, and then overthrow....umm....are you sure that's what the Big C wants us to do???.....wait, isn't that treason??....in fact wasn't this the same idea Timothy McVeigh and Terry Nichols, the men responsible for one of the most shocking and savage domestic terrorist attacks within America - the Oklahoma City Bombing tried to do??

Trust me, it won't work.

Serowbot wrote on 07/24/12 at 18:08:06:



No, I didnt say that was IN the C. The C was written by people who Understood what this says.
They had just dealt with tyranny & wanted to create a nation that put the power in the hands of the People, not the Goobs. They are Servants of the People, not the rulers. Should they cease to be responsive to the voice of the People & start doing things TO the People instead of For the People, then the People have the DUTY to take control. If the Goobs will not respond to peaceful demands, & the ballot box doesnt solve the problem,, theres the ammo box. Understand the mindset of the men who wrote it, then its clear. But, if we try to understand it while we work from the position of "Its not reasonable to believe anyone would set up a government & in doing so, set it up with the idea that the people not only Might or Could rise up against it, but Should, in fact, rise up against it ,  IF, Read the IF, IF, the government behaves in an oppressive or tyrannical manner"  ,, Okay,, now, if someone has a deep belief that its not reasonable the authors of the C would do that, then it would be doubly difficult to see that that is exactly what the C says,


Now, I ask you, honestly,,when the NDAA was creating such an uproar & people were saying it meant Americans could be hauled away,, did you read it to mean that? I did,, & the courts demanded that be stricken,, I was correct in the reading of that bill, just as I was correct in my assessment of nafta.
Ill stay with this, but, Ill tell ya now, your snarky shots seriously pissed me off. I have a copy of the C within arms length & have read it, lots of it, more than once, If you want to discuss the thing, we can do that, if you want to take cheap shots at me,, well,, Im not down with that,,

& you pointed out the number of times the C had been amended, I asked what do amendments have to do with our discussion, then you pretended that you needed to point out we were discussin an amendment,,instead of explaining why you thot the number of changes was important,, I dont like that kind crap.. I havent been demeaning or snotty in any way, & Im not gonna have it,.