Why was 2nd amendment written?

[Truth Detector]

fuck you

 

[Truth Detector]

Overthrow an Oppressive Government.

.................we're all on the same side now.

Delusional and stupid. Quite the combination there JackOFF.

 

[Truth Detector]

It was likely written in anticipation of citizens needing to protect themselves from trumptards in the future.

 

[Truth Detector]

Hey Dummy, you didn't get the point of his reply.

Hey, thread trolling Tard Boy; you don't get any points. The only point you have is the one on your shoulders.

 

[Truth Detector]

tRumpanzees are not exactly the sharpest knives in the drawer.

I R O N Y!!!!

 

[Jack]

Delusional and stupid. Quite the combination there JackOFF.

Are you saying I'm wrong? Did you think the Second Amendment is for squirrel hunting?

 

[Truth Detector]

Sure but it wasn't referring to you.

 

[Truth Detector]

T. A. Gardner is simply a typical trumptard trying to defend a very flawed and losing candidate. It is rather sad watching him demean himself, but it is a free country.

 

[Truth Detector]

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.

 

[Truth Detector]

So progressives would have another reason to hate the Constitution.

 

[Truth Detector]

It was so those who supported slavery could legally murder those who objected or escaped.

 

[Truth Detector]

Why don't you say you don't know instead of looking like a dumbass?

It's the only way he can look. Like a dumbass.

 

[Truth Detector]

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.

 

[Truth Detector]

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?

Why should it? Do you know that the first thing a tyrannical government does is disarm it's populace? Why do you think that is? Be less ignorant and dishonest.

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?

No. It was intended to prevent a tyrannical government from controlling the masses. An armed populace does two things; prevent tyranny and defend borders and property. Try to be less ignorant.

And if so, now that the US has that federal militia is the intent of the amendment now moot?

Only someone with the mistaken and uneducated belief that Government is good can say such stupid shit. Try to be less stupid and ignorant.

 

[Truth Detector]

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

 

[Truth Detector]

View attachment 17894

Virginia thought it was important enough to put it on our flag.

Sad that Virginia is now going full socialist Democrat.

 

[Truth Detector]

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?

The second amendment has NOTHING to do with a large standing army. We have a large standing army because there are tyrants in the world who threaten our allies and peaceful neighboring nations.

The lessons we learned in WWI and WWII is that allowing tyranny to expand is more costly in US lives than preventing them from expanding at all.

 

[Truth Detector]

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.

So we should learn NOTHING from the lessons of WWI, WWII and Korea? You're dead wrong in this regard.

 

[Truth Detector]

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.

^History dumbass.

 

[Truth Detector]

Actually, no one has been able to definitively answer that question, no Supreme Court, not even Scalia, that is why he skipped over the prefatory clause, so much for his whacky "orginialism" charade