A succinct description of the #2

[VitaMan]

Read it a few more times. The right to bear arms comes from the government needing a militia. They couldn't afford one. Similar to the idea of a posse.
."how many of you can bring your own guns ?"

Note yet another shooting massacre today in IL.

Also note: today the organization of a citizen posse is unthinkable. Even if formed by law enforcement.

[VitaMan]

If you will notice, the Amendment is in Yoda structure

[Levianon17]

Originally Posted by VitaMan

Not all. They are discussing a military force for a government....not vigilantes.

Are you familiar with the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878? In basic terms it restricts the Military from acting in a Law Enforcement capacity to enforce Domestic Policies within the United States. So the Second Amendment is still an important Constitutional Amendment.

[Yssup Rider]

Originally Posted by Levianon17

Are you familiar with the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878? In basic terms it restricts the Military from acting in a Law Enforcement capacity to enforce Domestic Policies within the United States. So the Second Amendment is still an important Constitutional Amendment.

Nope. States, counties and cities serve those needs.

[winn dixie]

The first 10 are known as the Bill of rights! Those rights are personal rights. nuff said mic drop

Anyone arguing against, is against guns! Just admit it!

Also that same person is against individual liberties!

[VitaMan]

The right to bear arms is granted because it was necessary for a free state to have a militia. They didn't have a militia.

[Levianon17]

Originally Posted by Yssup Rider

Nope. States, counties and cities serve those needs.

The Constitution are provisions set forth that the Government must adhere to, not the Citizen. The Government can't construct any Law or Policy that restricts or infringes upon a citizen's 2nd Amendment right and Law Enforcement isn't obligated to enforce anything unconstitutional. The Second Amendment isn't going anywhere whether anyone likes it or not.

[VitaMan]

Discussion is completed

[dilbert firestorm]

Originally Posted by VitaMan

Discussion is completed

TWK: If you say so! bahahahahaha!

[Yssup Rider]

Originally Posted by Levianon17

The Constitution are provisions set forth that the Government must adhere to, not the Citizen. The Government can't construct any Law or Policy that restricts or infringes upon a citizen's 2nd Amendment right and Law Enforcement isn't obligated to enforce anything unconstitutional. The Second Amendment isn't going anywhere whether anyone likes it or not.

So you’re saying the government can’t do it but the states can’t do it. Only citizens can defend themselves domestically.

I’m not sure you know that you’re arguing against yourself. But you are.

My point was that the need for the protections provided by a standing militia is today served by local (often way too many) law enforcement agencies.

But then again, you believe that laws written 240 years ago are sacred.

[1blackman1]

Originally Posted by Jacuzzme

Here comes the “bUt tHe pEoPle DoNt HaVe A cHaNcE aGaInSt ThE aRmY” argument, from a bunch of armchair military experts, who’ve never been anywhere near a war, let alone see firsthand how handful of guys in sandals can stop the most powerful army ever assembled.

False. I have fought in one. But most of the “conservatives” claiming to love the US on this site haven’t ever served or been to a war zone. Nice try though.

[Precious_b]

Love how everyone just glosses over "Well regulated" portion.

Someone care to enlighten us to the meaning of that.

God forbid that it puts strictures on the possession of what he have a *Right* to.

[dilbert firestorm]

Originally Posted by Precious_b

Love how everyone just glosses over "Well regulated" portion.

Someone care to enlighten us to the meaning of that.

God forbid that it puts strictures on the possession of what he have a *Right* to.

with respect to "regulated", all that means is that the state has the right to regulate arms standards and people standards.

Militia is basically the people of American citizenry.

the Militia is not the National Guard.

[the_real_Barleycorn]

The concept of vigilantes would not be around for another 70 years and on the other side of the country in California. You probably think that citizens getting together is vigilantism, but you would be wrong. Vigilantism was about citizens empowering themselves to the "the law" with the support of the written law.
Vigilance Committees sprung up in California to enforce their version of law. They empowered themselves as the rightful enforcers of said law. The local military commander, a guy named William T. Sherman, had to deal with them harshly.
Know the difference!

[the_real_Barleycorn]

Here is an odd by undeniable fact (except for the above), the US Army, the US Navy, and the US Marines celebrate their birthdays from 1770s. Pretty difficult to do if you don't exist. No, there was an army, a navy, and a marine contingent when the Constitution was signed but not like we see today. That ended with World War II and the constant threat of communism requiring a large and vigilante standing military.