What do you think "being necessary to the security of a free state" means?
Think about the context of 18th century America.
No police
Indian attacks all the time
Possible invasion from Canada
Do you really think it meant rise up against your own government or is that a 21st century interpretation?
yes, the founding fathers just won a war against a tyrannical police state
I think that when they are refering to the security of a FREE state, they are talking specifically about fighting back against tyranny, which could threaten those freedoms. So yeah I think its explicitly about being able to defend oneself from one's own government.
there was also the whiskey rebellion during the 10 years of the articles of confederation
> well regulated Militia well regulated Militia well regulated Militia well regulated Militia well regulated Militia well regulated Militia well regulated Militia well regulated Militia well regulated Militia
>Think about the context of 18th century America
They literally just overthrew their own government.
each state was considered sovereign from all the other states
The USA is a union of states. Even if the union goes the states don't go and its the responsibility of each state to protect its people from enemies including the government.
We talk shit about each other because we might as well be independent countries in a loose agreement (we are)
what do you think they meant by "security" do you think they meant the militias would be their armed forces?
The concept of standing armies was rare in 18th century, most armies would be assembled and then go home when not needed
Sure, but I dont see what your point is
"A militia when properly formed are in fact the people themselves…and include, according to the past and general usuage of the states, all men capable of bearing arms… "To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them."
- Richard Henry Lee, Federal Farmer No. 18, January 25, 1788
"Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined.... The great object is that every man be armed. Everyone who is able might have a gun."
- Patrick Henry, Speech to the Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 5, 1778
>Pretty self-explanatory
They still are dumbfuck. If the feds pass an anti 2nd amendment law and try and enforce it in Alaska they will get arrested and jailed. Pic related.
So, my wife just stepped out of the shower and slipped into the satin robe and bra/panty set I bought her at Victoria's Secret yesterday. She just approached me while I'm standing here in the doorway smoking a marlboro to inform me she "got it all smooth". She then pulled her panties to the side with one hand and with the other, grabbed my hand to guide it over her smooth pussy lips as she bit her lip and smiled. She then turned towards the bedroom but, not before pulling her robe up to expose her ass and slap it as she glanced back over her shoulder to wink at me. Looks like a cool, crisp evening of pussy and weed is on the menu, boys. I'll probably have a double toddy, too.
Anyway, its definitely referring to tyranny brought on by the government.
Same
I still think they meant security in terms of an army as militias were the primary defense system at that time.
All of these states were now free states and had to worry about invasion from outside forces.
So this was saying, in order to have a military you've got to let the citizens have their weaponry so they can be a part of the militia.
They had no concept of a country with a full time professional army and I don't think they would have mentioned a militia or it's importance in security if all they meant was everyone gets a gun.
Good. The states should have more power than the Fed.
>They had no concept of a country with a full time professional army
That's exactly what the continental army was. Militias were independent of that army and militias formed where people decided to stand next to each other with guns.
continental army was disbanded in 1783
They definitely did have a concept of a full time professional military, since they just got through fighting and beating one during the revolution. Many nations had large professional armies at this point.
I dont think the amendment had anything to do with how they imagined a federal or state level army would look to defend these entities from foreign threats to their sovereignty. Furthermore it wouldn't be necessary at all to help the organization of a state affiliated military.
>the eggs are gone
>therefore so is the toast
The army was disbanded and replaced with another. The militias existed outside of that army
It's drawing on the tradition of local militias being raised to keep the peace and defend the village/city/fiefdom/state in Anglo-Saxon cultures.
>The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure.
-Thomas Jefferson
Okay so assuming they meant everyone gets a gun so they can wage war on their own government, why not be more fucking clear about it?
why mention militias at all?
Rather them Indians we now have niggers
Specifically to give citizens the right to form militia's with their arms.
If individual ownership of arms is hindered, it hinders the effectiveness of the State Militias. (Militias plural, as in the militias of each State - not of the central State)
I'd like to remind y'all of the Battle of the Wabash, the largest defeat of American forces by the Indians ever, which happened on November 4 1791.
Bill of Rights wasn't ratified until December 15, 1791.
Don't tell me that the Indians weren't a consideration in "security"
SHALL
>It doesn't say you can form them on Tuesdays so you can't form them on tuesdays
Its clear that militias are ok and are to be well regulated
Let me put the amendment to you in modern language, as recognized by the Supreme Court:
>In order to ensure the existence of a well-regulated militia, which is a necessary for the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
Namely, the only way for a well-regulated militia to exist, is for the right of the people to keep and bear arms to not be infringed. If you infringe the right of the people to keep and bear arms, a well regulated militia can not exist, and thus the security of a free state can not be ensured.
Got it?
How is the security of a free state ensured by a militia in a modern context?
Some people just don't like the fact being a rowdy "redneck" is part of our duty as Americans.
OP would lose his mind if he knew how the Founding Fathers felt about bonfires, dancing and shooting guns in the air at celebrations
Let somebody declare martial law and ask for volunteers and find out
Think about the context of 21st century America.
No police
Antifa attacks all the time
Possible invasion of Canada
forget the first half and read the second half.
the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
so there you have it, too bad jew fucks are so sick they have already got half of Americas guns taken away its the only non jew parts that haven't had this happen. What does the second amendment even mean in place like Hawaii or Massachusetts? THEY COULD GIVE TWO SHITS ABOUT US AND OUR RIGHTS. dumbass sheep thinks its good for us too, traitors deserve to die.
First of all, the Supreme Court has ruled in the Heller decision that the 2nd Amendment also protects the individual right to keep and bear arms solely for the purpose of self-defense, unrelated to service in a state militia.
But the core purpose of the 2nd Amendment still serves the same purpose today as it did at the founding. State militias will make sure that the federal government doesn't overreach too much in their control over the states.
Yes, states have ceded considerable power to the states over the years and the federal government has grown, but the purpose and point is still there. There are literally thousands of legitimate armed and trained militias in the U.S. that would cause fucking hell of the federal government actually overreached in any serious way.
I doubt it, the feds have tanks aircraft etc. only if every citizen is armed then shit will never happen otherwise we seem fucked
We didn't have a navy or artillery when we declared war on the redcoats. We stole us some.
You don't exactly win civil wars with aircraft carriers, fighter jets and tanks. There are good threads on Jow Forums that talk about how an actual civil war would turn out, and we have really good knowledge and experience of this from Serbia/Bosnia/Yugoslavia.
Applied to an American context, the U.S. federal government would be absolutely obliterated in a civil war and the country would completely split up.
americans are too fat, too into facebook and phones, and or are already slaves to the feds. I don't see anything good happening in America, unless more people are woke
>Yeah, we'll just fire a tank or a drone on every private citizen's house to stop them
Let's see how that works out
That is literally the reason for the second amendment. Don't you know American history?
And don't give me any of that "but the government is stronger than you drone strikes lmao" bullshit. We won our independence against the best equipped, trained, and supplied army in the world, which had cutting edge weaponry and tactics. And we beat them with shitty old smoothbore muskets and blunderbusses. Im pretty sure we can down a drone with AR15s and take care of tanks with strategicly placed tank traps.
Ever seen infrared video of a drone strike?
What's your AR gonna do when they blow you up from a mile away with a hellfire missile?
You're forgetting the 30-50% of the standing U.S. army deserting and swapping loyalties the moment war is called, not to speak of the saboteurs and the overall chaos that Republican states and army bases would cause.
Think of it in the bigger picture.
More importantly, what does "free state" mean? Hölzernes Eisen.
Why do you feel so strongly that the founders were concerned chiefly with the military organization and armament with the second amendment. You don't need to grant a right to all citizens to bear arms, in order to be able to field a state military in battle against external threats.
That barely works to keep civil unrest down in our foreign adventures, it'd be worse on home territory.
Yea, I do.
And when they're done blowing us up with cruise missiles blackhawks carpetboming tanks artillery and space laser weapons and everyone is dead, the military will clap and the war will be over.
Or ill just stand on a jews roof.
Its perfectly clear. Its in the "bill of rights", not in the "bill of rights which only apply to state sanctioned professional soldiers"
Y'all act like it would just so super apparent that there's tyranny.
Only around 2% of the population actually fought in the revolution and a huge % of the population were loyalists.
If a dictator comes, he will be massively popular along the lines of Hitler.
You'd be waging war against a popular government and it's not as if the rest of the country would agree with you.
defend your country from a tyrannical gov't
!=
>rise up against your own government
Yes, it's meant to rise up against the government. Go read Madison's contributions to the Federalist Papers to learn more.
If the government ever robo killed an american citizen like that on american soil, you can be sure the country's entire leadership would be massacred shortly after
Im pretty sure the indiscriminate slaughter of civilians doesn't make you popular
>Memeflaggot
>Y'all
C'mon...you can do better than this
Shouldn't you be explaining this to twitter?
You act like people haven't already used the second amendment in a struggle against tyrannical state forces and prevailed. Check out "negros with guns"
>You don't exactly win civil wars with aircraft carriers, fighter jets and tanks.
There is a large group of Tamils in the afterlife who might want to discuss your working with you.
If you have a rebellion in the modern US their government will do what it does everywhere it goes. They will use paramilitary death squads to do their filthy work for them. Not that there will be a rebellion. People in the US are the most docile on the planet, fat old people reliant on state assistance to keep their diabetes in control. They have no history of internal violence.
>Do you really think it meant rise up against your own government or is that a 21st century interpretation?
The founding fathers wrote letters and essays user. We know they meant to secure ourselves against our own government. 100%
There is no way around this the American people are to be armed well enough that the government needs to watch its ass.
The right of the people to keep and bear arms hall not be infringed.
>states pre-empting a federal law
If it was any other subject matter, I'd say "lol, good luck with that", but I'm not aware of any case law on whether states can arrest federal enforcers if a federal court has yet to rule on whether the state or the federal laws take precedence.
Talk about projection.
You got a loicence for that opinion m8?
>t. can't be militia
The drones would be rendered useless, because you wouldn't have secure facilities to launch them from. Small group infantry is the counter to entrenchments, boi
he's too busy watching his wife and daughters get raped by muzzies
You need to lay off pic related
We need more of this.
If you're a male citizen of the united states over the age of 18, you're legally part of the disorganized milita
Drones only really work when you are fighting on a billion miles of flat desert anyway.
>paramilitary death squads
Oh, those things that are vulnerable to an AR-15 loaded with M855A1 ball?
Damn right. Its our responsibility
Indeed. Anything remotely operated becomes pretty well useless in an urban environment.
>government is democratically elected
>tyrant
what?
Prefatory vs. operative clause breh.
While you're at it, check out DC v Heller
Also, read Guns, Crime, and Freedom by Wayne LaPierre
Also, join the NRA and GOA, NOTHING pisses the leftists off more than these organizations
Things civilians can and should own according to the second ammendment
>tanks
>drones with guns
>tactical nukes
>untactitcal nukes
>drones with nukes
>machine guns
>AI with machine guns
>flame throwers
>missles
>RPG
>bazooka
>jets
etc etc etc
I don't understand what these commie idiots don't get about "shall not be infringed".
>implying people in power can't be corrupted
"An Ally can turn..."
The military studies this shit and have basically concluded that an internal rebellion would instantly break the country. No government would be able to run. The military can beat and people individually but they cant keep infrastructure going like lets say fuel for anything or electricity.
>politicians tell the truth and can't abuse power
So you know there was this thing called the revolutionary war where minutemen and volunteer militias ( i.e. armed neighborhood watch groups) fought their government.
It might have something to do with that....
fucking christ open a book for once in your life.
To this day the U.S. army stops existing and is recreating every few years when congress re-authorizes them Since we always re'authorize it gives the impression of a standing army but it actually legally os not.
It's pretty fucking obvious, even from a non-American point of view.
A well regulated militia was believed to be necessary to the security of a free state, so it was written into your fucking constitution that the right of your people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
Now to infringe on someones rights is not limited to taking those rights away completely, but encroaching on them too. So, to suddenly tell people "you can keep and bear arms, but only if you do x, y, and z" or "you can keep and bear arms, as long as you don't do THIS" or "you can only keep and bear THESE TYPES of arms" is basically un-constitutional.
Any fucking questions, leftburgers? Sage this shit.
A dozen people working together could stop fuel from getting to a military base. The military cannot fight off an internal rebellion.
>Do you really think it meant rise up against your own government or is that a 21st century interpretation?
It was literally written within the calm after an unlawful armed insurrection against a perceived tyranny.... by the people who participated in said tyranny.
If you think the answer is no, you are brainlette.
Also the continental army had already been founder prior to James Madison delivering the bill of rights to congress. And a militia is a unique term.
Also also in his original address the order was flipped. The first line was that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed and he only offered that thr best security of a free state was a militia as a supporting argument. He even stipulated that those who were morally scrupulous of bearing arms would not be required to do so. Meaning you were free to do so or not.
>projection
You have to project in this case. In the 1980s when Irish republican terrorism was still a thing a quarter of their commanders were British spies. They were completely penetrated at every level. That is in the 1980s when a phone was something you put coins in to use. You don't see a single Irish state, do you now?
Now project yourself into the shoes of the unfortunate Tamil paramilitary and civilians who the Sri Lankan army kettled in and massacred. They were fighting for several decades against an army which was beatable. They got annihilated.
Now put your Doritos down for a second. Think of a scene with Joe-Bob, Fat Cunt, Oxycontin Smoker and Ol' Petey Prostate sat around in their mancave plotting to overthrow the US government. Every electronic communication they have ever made has been recorded. They could not walk around the block without having a heart attack. They cannot fight. They have no history of fighting. They have no experience of occupation. They have no identity other than the flag of the very government they are looking to resist.
You think these piles of sludge are going to survive for how long?
Fuck off britbong I'll tell the queen your spoons are looking a bit too sharp
A militia is just a bunch of average joes who take up arms. Which is exactly what the militia and minutemen of the time did.
And well regulated is regulated like in a voltage regulator and since the subject is the right to bear arms and since at the time we had trouble equipping people due british anti weapon laws it is clear that refers to being well uniformly equipped in arms and armaments.
Our army is reconstituted every time congress votes to re-authorize
Timing is off, there. It was against the taxes imposed by democrats in response to whig fuckery in building a navy.
>1791
>US paying most of its budget to north african pirates
>fuck that lets build a navy
>large population states dont want to pay for it
>western states get stuck with the bill
>politcally justified as "whiskey tax," the main income for farmers too far away from eastern markets.
>2 wolves and a sheep deciding whats for supper
>tar and feather revenuers
>3 year rebellion
>never did pay the taxes
Im glad we built the navy, but im pissed the rich states thought they could pick on the little guy to pay for it. Those same new England assholes completely botched the war of 1812, and had to get their asses saved by the same rednecks they vilified for inspection.
Our founding fathers ignored the constitution before the ink was even dry when it suited them. Dont think times have changed.
Serious projection.
When it's own government is the problem:
>Military tries to crack down
>Everyone shoots back
>Military kills everyone
>Nobody to pay taxes to military
>Military starves to death
So they must use persuasion, they cannot use bare force
If a foreign military tries something
>Foreign military arrives
>2 million angry foreigners trying to march on soil
>100 million guns shoot back
Because thats what a militia is.... fucking christ. It is by classical definition an irregular force not under the authority of the state comprised of volunteers from among the people.
A free state is one where the people are free. A militia of the people fighting for the people as opposed to a state controlled army fighting to maintain state power. How hard is this shit to understand?
You know very little about Americans...
The constitution was the set of rules for the government.
The original amendments were negative rights that defended the people. (The right of the people SHALL NOT be infringed)
Our nation was founded on a fundamental distrust of other humans in power over us, and the belief that concentrated power corrupts people.
The power of firearms was never meant to be concentrated into the hands of the few in government, just as religion & press were
also off limits to the few in government.
