What would be a good response to the people who fire back with “a well REGULATED militia...”? Not asking for a friend, I honestly need something to fire back at commies when they say this...
The sad thing is is when the founding fathers wrote that they had no concept that the people who would attempt to do that would be in control of the Abrams, A-10 and predators. This is beginning to lean towards a Tiananmen Square situation. Which of course will lead towards The Killing Fields situation.
They understood that the government would eventually have a standing army. The debate is if they intended to have a FEDERAL Regular Army or what we call now; National Guard.
Either way, the purpose of the Second Amendment was to stop tyranny. Either foreign tyranny, or DOMESTIC tyranny in the form of Government.
The Founding Fathers knew that if you went long enough, eventually every government would become tyrannical and the only check to that would be the population owning firearms and being able to be on even ground with the might of the Government. That's the only thing that stops tyrants. The Founding Fathers knew that and that's why that is the Second Amendment.
Well no. At the time they practically required every able bodied man 14-40 to be geared and prepared to fight. With every Right comes a Responsibility. Every individual had the responsibility to be ready, every community had the responsibility to organize when needed.
Why the hell would the Founding Fathers, that feared a Tyrannical Government think the Government should have an Army... when they just had to fight a Government Army with civilian militias? Or would they support an armed population that was 100% self sufficient at their own defense? That way, they'd never have to worry about fighting their own Tyrannical Military.
If they wanted the Government to have the authority to create a military, it would be in the constitution. The Constitution is a list of the only limited powers Government should have. If they wanted Government to have the power to do it, they would have included it.
Wall Builders has plenty of resources you can read, best collection of information about the Founders that I know of.
People forget how to read in 1776. And the guys that wrote that weren't a bunch of modern day lawyers that wanted to sit around all day discussing the meaning of "is". I read it like so:
The rights to:
"Keep a well regulated militia, shall not be infringed"
Being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."
They meant for us to have BOTH a well (tax) funded militia, or army, to protect us from foreign forces, AND and armed civilian population, to protect themselves from tyrants and dictators from within. Which is where we are right at this moment.
"A well regulated militia, being necessary [as in necessary evil] to the security of a free state,"
A military IS necessary, but they JUST got out of a war with a government who turned it's military against it's own people. They were stating here that a well regulated militia is a necessary evil to maintain a country.
Then we pass into the second half, which is contingent, and in direct opposition to the first:
"the right of the people to bear arms, shall not be infringed."
BECAUSE the government must have a military, the people MUST have arms to protect themselves from the same military. Again, they JUST got out of a war where the military was turned against the country's own citizens.
You keep thinking "regulated Militias" means "tax funded, Government run" when we fought the Revolutionary War with Regulated Militias that weren't tax funded or Government controlled.
We still have militias that are not tax funded or Government run. It's just local groups of random volunteers. Just like during the Revolution.
Look at Texas, if we still had Founders views of Government, Texan Militias would be at the Texas border. But instead we are relying on or held back by the Government's Military.
The only Authority they trusted a Government to have was the authority to protect our rights. So the worst they could do was protect our rights aggressively.
Long before it was written the Continental Army was well established. It was written to make sure that the leaders of the country would have an extremely hard time becoming the rulers of the country, which they are currently attempting.
This is true and a good point. When militias weren't enough and we needed to go line to line with the British Army we had to form a larger more cohesive force.
But even then, it was armed civilians showing up with their gear. Which was really just my main point. It was written when we were able to fight off the world's largest army/navy because of civilians armed with Weapons of War. The Founders understood the American Army should always be the American people, protected against any threat Foreign or Domestic. Tyranny is only able to return because we let the Government restrict our access to the weapons we paid for.
SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED
What would be a good response to the people who fire back with “a well REGULATED militia...”? Not asking for a friend, I honestly need something to fire back at commies when they say this...
The sad thing is is when the founding fathers wrote that they had no concept that the people who would attempt to do that would be in control of the Abrams, A-10 and predators. This is beginning to lean towards a Tiananmen Square situation. Which of course will lead towards The Killing Fields situation.
When this was written there was no military. So it was 100% about civilians arming themselves with guns of war.
No.
They understood that the government would eventually have a standing army. The debate is if they intended to have a FEDERAL Regular Army or what we call now; National Guard.
Either way, the purpose of the Second Amendment was to stop tyranny. Either foreign tyranny, or DOMESTIC tyranny in the form of Government.
The Founding Fathers knew that if you went long enough, eventually every government would become tyrannical and the only check to that would be the population owning firearms and being able to be on even ground with the might of the Government. That's the only thing that stops tyrants. The Founding Fathers knew that and that's why that is the Second Amendment.
You should read a civics book.
Well no. At the time they practically required every able bodied man 14-40 to be geared and prepared to fight. With every Right comes a Responsibility. Every individual had the responsibility to be ready, every community had the responsibility to organize when needed.
Why the hell would the Founding Fathers, that feared a Tyrannical Government think the Government should have an Army... when they just had to fight a Government Army with civilian militias? Or would they support an armed population that was 100% self sufficient at their own defense? That way, they'd never have to worry about fighting their own Tyrannical Military.
If they wanted the Government to have the authority to create a military, it would be in the constitution. The Constitution is a list of the only limited powers Government should have. If they wanted Government to have the power to do it, they would have included it.
Wall Builders has plenty of resources you can read, best collection of information about the Founders that I know of.
People forget how to read in 1776. And the guys that wrote that weren't a bunch of modern day lawyers that wanted to sit around all day discussing the meaning of "is". I read it like so:
The rights to:
"Keep a well regulated militia, shall not be infringed"
Being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."
They meant for us to have BOTH a well (tax) funded militia, or army, to protect us from foreign forces, AND and armed civilian population, to protect themselves from tyrants and dictators from within. Which is where we are right at this moment.
It's more of a BECAUSE not an AND.
"A well regulated militia, being necessary [as in necessary evil] to the security of a free state,"
A military IS necessary, but they JUST got out of a war with a government who turned it's military against it's own people. They were stating here that a well regulated militia is a necessary evil to maintain a country.
Then we pass into the second half, which is contingent, and in direct opposition to the first:
"the right of the people to bear arms, shall not be infringed."
BECAUSE the government must have a military, the people MUST have arms to protect themselves from the same military. Again, they JUST got out of a war where the military was turned against the country's own citizens.
You keep thinking "regulated Militias" means "tax funded, Government run" when we fought the Revolutionary War with Regulated Militias that weren't tax funded or Government controlled.
We still have militias that are not tax funded or Government run. It's just local groups of random volunteers. Just like during the Revolution.
Look at Texas, if we still had Founders views of Government, Texan Militias would be at the Texas border. But instead we are relying on or held back by the Government's Military.
The only Authority they trusted a Government to have was the authority to protect our rights. So the worst they could do was protect our rights aggressively.
Long before it was written the Continental Army was well established. It was written to make sure that the leaders of the country would have an extremely hard time becoming the rulers of the country, which they are currently attempting.
This is true and a good point. When militias weren't enough and we needed to go line to line with the British Army we had to form a larger more cohesive force.
But even then, it was armed civilians showing up with their gear. Which was really just my main point. It was written when we were able to fight off the world's largest army/navy because of civilians armed with Weapons of War. The Founders understood the American Army should always be the American people, protected against any threat Foreign or Domestic. Tyranny is only able to return because we let the Government restrict our access to the weapons we paid for.
HEY THAT SAYS SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED!!! Now where do I report infringements?
leave your report at the ammo-box
one could argue that bear do not have arms and therefore 2A is null