User Profile: Banner_Yet_Wave

Banner_Yet_Wave

Member Since: September 28, 2012

CommentsDisplaying comments newest to oldest.

  • January 23, 2013 at 8:26am

    In order to fully understand the second amendment, I recommend everyone read the constitution and pay attention to all clauses where the Militia (ie National Guard) is mentioned. Then read federalist paper 29. This is where the phrase ‘Well Regulated Militia’ comes from. But realize that Hamilton is defending the new constitution from critics. The critics are the ones who pushed for the bill of rights and the second amendment. Then you realize the critics feared the well regulated militia because they thought it could become the tool of dictators to overthrow liberty. In today’s vernacular the second amendment would read:

    Because we had to give so much control and authority to the federal government over the state militias, then we insist that every individual have the right to keep and bear arms. Then, if a dictator uses the well regulated militia to suppress freedom, the people will be able to defend their liberties.

    Those who claim the second amendment is a collective right are distorting history. If you are to defend your liberties from the National Guard, then at a minimum you need the common weapons issued to the National Guard. ie Automatic or Semi-Automatic rifles and hand guns, with the same magazine sizes as those used in the National Guard.

    Responses (1) +
  • January 5, 2013 at 3:22pm

    Question: What is up with that second amendment? ‘Well Regulated Militia?’ , ‘Right to bear arms?’. Did those guys who wrote this think we needed arms to join militias?

    Answer: The greatest concern of our nation’s builders was the preservation of the republic. Historically republics fall at the hands of dictators backed by the military. The roman republic fell to Caesar’s legions. British occupation was brutal. Murder, rape, property seizures, quartering of soldiers. No human rights or even human dignities are allowed under tyranny. Yet a military is needed to protect from outside forces. It is a necessary evil. The constitution created the ‘Well Regulated Militia’ or the National Guard as the primary protectors of the republic. Citizen soldiers were deemed safer than professionals. Yet, Everyone still feared this federal armed force. It would be the tool of dictators. Before ratification the writers of the constitution had to defend the National Militia from critics. The critics drove the creation of the bill of rights and the 1st 10 amendments to the constitution. A well-regulated militia, being necessary for the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. We are not given this right so we can join militias. We are given this right to protect ourselves from the militia.

    Responses (4) +
  • January 5, 2013 at 1:06pm

    The second amendment is a right given to all US citizens to balance the power given to the federal government in the following:
    Constitution Article 1, Section 8.
    Congress shall have the power …..
    To provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; ….
    To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
    To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress; ……..
    Article 2, Section 2.
    The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; ……
    Today’s National Guard follows the above rules for the militia.
    Read also Federalist paper 29, Hamilton is defending the proposed constitution. Ask yourself what were the critics of the constitution saying? Here Hamilton uses the phase ‘Well Regulated Militia’. The second amendment is in direct response to this paper. The proponents of the second amendment, the critics of the constitution, did not trust this ‘Well Regulated Militia’, they hated it.

  • January 5, 2013 at 10:28am

    Question: What is up with that second amendment? ‘Well Regulated Militia?’ , ‘Right to bear arms?’. Did those guys who wrote this think we needed arms to join militias?

    Answer: The greatest concern of our nation’s builders was the preservation of the republic. Historically republics fall at the hands of dictators backed by the military. The roman republic fell to Caesar’s legions. British occupation was brutal. Murder, rape, property seizures, quartering of soldiers. No human rights or even human dignities are allowed under tyranny. Yet a military is needed to protect from outside forces. It is a necessary evil. The constitution created the ‘Well Regulated Militia’ or the National Guard as the primary protectors of the republic. Citizen soldiers were deemed safer than professionals. Yet, Everyone still feared this federal armed force. It would be the tool of dictators. Before ratification the writers of the constitution had to defend the National Militia from critics. The critics drove the creation of the bill of rights and the 1st 10 amendments to the constitution. A well-regulated militia, being necessary for the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. We are not given this right so we can join militias. We are given this right to protect ourselves from the militia.

    Responses (2) +