Why was 2nd amendment written?

Tacomaman said:
Keep on "Gardening" there T.A. Maybe you can unearth some missing tRump votes that were buried.....lol
Click to expand...

need-to-improve-comeback-skill-memes.jpg
 
Tacomaman said:
Hardly. Responding to you takes little in the way of effort.
Now, let me know when you can back up any of your ridiculous theories......wink....wink.
Click to expand...

For you it must take a lot of effort since you went into hiding immediately after being shown to be the fool you are, boy.
 
domer76 said:
The original wording of the 2nd Amendment, as written by Madison, included a conscientious objector clause. There is only one reason for that. Because it was written in the context of military (militia) service. Some of the reference to militia service is still there.

When the phrasing of all the Amendments was considered and modified, for some reason the Senate committee removed that portion. At that time, the Senate did not retain records of their proceedings like the House did, so nobody knows why.
Click to expand...

The original wording of the 2nd amendment is exactly what's in the Constitution.
 
Fledgling America was under constant threat from European powers. We had no money or tax base to train an army. Defending America was the job of the people. Civilian weapons were the military weapons too. That is why the second refers to "a well-regulated militia necessary to the security of the free state". In 1812 the Brits went through America easily and burned the capitol down. But the war was fought with armed civilians.
 
T. A. Gardner said:
thomasjeffersonquotewellarmedmilitia.jpg


The intent of the second amendment was that all able bodied and "free" (today this could be taken to mean those of sound mind and not having a violent criminal record) adult Americans should have, own, and know how to use military grade individual weapons like assault rifles, pistols, or a machinegun. The intent was that in time of national crisis or war such Americans would organize themselves into local "militias" without the government's need to interfere in that happening and they would then defend their communities.

In realistic terms, the Swiss model is very similar to this where every able bodied adult male is issued an assault rifle to keep at home and is additionally issued ammunition annually by the government to practice with. Shooting clubs, and other quasi-military activities are encouraged as well. If the nation is invaded, then everyone takes up arms to defend the country.

Possession of arms outside this are for practical purposes like self-defense, defense of one's home, or hunting. That's an extension of "the militia" idea.

Click to expand...


Do you think the 2nd amendment should be negated or altered or made irrelevant by the fact that the USA has an enormous government Military?

Was the intent of the amendment to provide legal means for an easily assembled local militia if necessary because there weren't the means for a "federal" or government funded overarching Militia? And if so, now that the US has that federal militia is the intent of the amendment now moot?
 
Triplelefthook said:
Do you think the 2nd amendment should be negated or altered or made irrelevant by the fact that the USA has an enormous government Military?

Was the intent of the amendment to provide legal means for an easily assembled local militia if necessary because there weren't the means for a "federal" or government funded overarching Militia? And if so, now that the US has that federal militia is the intent of the amendment now moot?
Click to expand...

the founders knew that a large standing army was a bane to liberty, so it makes you look like a huge moron to believe that since we now have a large standing army, the 2nd isn't necessary
 
SmarterthanYou said:
the founders knew that a large standing army was a bane to liberty, so it makes you look like a huge moron to believe that since we now have a large standing army, the 2nd isn't necessary
Click to expand...

I'm not saying that I was just asking for an opinion.

In this vain, do you think that if the USA is being true to the founders original vision that the US should disband the large standing army?

I do not think the US should get rid of the 2nd amendment or get rid of guns, just a question of reason: do you think that the 2nd amendment is at odds with the existence of a large standing army?
 
SmarterthanYou said:
the founders knew that a large standing army was a bane to liberty, so it makes you look like a huge moron to believe that since we now have a large standing army, the 2nd isn't necessary
Click to expand...

Wrong way around. We don't need the large standing army we have. We certainly don't need to be the ones protecting say Europe for example.

Trump had this one right...

199qs4v9qw2b2png.png
 
Triplelefthook said:
Do you think the 2nd amendment should be negated or altered or made irrelevant by the fact that the USA has an enormous government Military?

Was the intent of the amendment to provide legal means for an easily assembled local militia if necessary because there weren't the means for a "federal" or government funded overarching Militia? And if so, now that the US has that federal militia is the intent of the amendment now moot?
Click to expand...

Yep, it’s moot. The founders hated the notion of a standing army. They saw how it broke nations in Europe and led to almost constant war. Hence, the need for a militia until an army could be mustered, if necessary.

Well, now we have the biggest, baddest standing military in the world. That militia and the need for the requisite arms is outdated.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top