Why there is a need for the Second Am...

Why there is a need for the Second Amendment

There are 245 comments on the Tampa Bay Online story from Jan 3, 2013, titled Why there is a need for the Second Amendment. In it, Tampa Bay Online reports that:

Rep. John Lewis, D-Ga., in the wake of the Newtown, Conn., shootings, said: "The British are not coming.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Tampa Bay Online.

“HUNTING RIGHTS ADVOCATE”

Since: Oct 08

Boggy Creek

#129 Jan 7, 2013
woodtick57 wrote:
<quoted text> A well regulated militia. why do you keep forgetting that phrase?
how convenient...
Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man gainst his own bosom. Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American...[T]he unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people.
---Tenche Coxe, The Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788.

“HUNTING RIGHTS ADVOCATE”

Since: Oct 08

Boggy Creek

#130 Jan 7, 2013
"The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes.... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man."
- Thomas Jefferson (quoting 18th century criminologist Cesare Beccaria)

“HUNTING RIGHTS ADVOCATE”

Since: Oct 08

Boggy Creek

#131 Jan 7, 2013
woodtick57 wrote:
<quoted text> A well regulated militia. why do you keep forgetting that phrase?
how convenient...
“I ask, Sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them.”
George Mason
Co-author of the Second Amendment
during Virginia’s Convention to Ratify the Constitution, 1788

“A militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves …”
Richard Henry Lee
writing in Letters from the Federal Farmer to the Republic, Letter XVIII, May, 1788.

“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
American Statesman, 1788

I think it's pretty clear what the Founding fathers meant by the term militia. Those who use semantics in an attempt to corrupt that undeniable meaning to disarm or restrict the people are enemies of the free American people. Plain and simple.

Since: Mar 11

St. Croix valley

#132 Jan 7, 2013
Squach wrote:
<quoted text>Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man gainst his own bosom. Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American...[T]he unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people.
---Tenche Coxe, The Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788.
yeah, someone already posted that same quote...parrots much?

Did you have a point with it?

Since: Mar 11

St. Croix valley

#133 Jan 7, 2013
Squach wrote:
<quoted text>
“I ask, Sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them.”
George Mason
Co-author of the Second Amendment
during Virginia’s Convention to Ratify the Constitution, 1788
“A militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves …”
Richard Henry Lee
writing in Letters from the Federal Farmer to the Republic, Letter XVIII, May, 1788.
“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
American Statesman, 1788
I think it's pretty clear what the Founding fathers meant by the term militia. Those who use semantics in an attempt to corrupt that undeniable meaning to disarm or restrict the people are enemies of the free American people. Plain and simple.
Who's talking about disarming the US citizenry?

Since: Mar 11

St. Croix valley

#134 Jan 7, 2013
Tory II wrote:
<quoted text>LOL ! If not for guns, murder would not exist.
Who knew, men need guns to kill small kids.
You're so stupid...
that's a pretty moronic view on guns...
Aphelion

Melbourne, FL

#135 Jan 7, 2013
CrimeaRiver - IMP wrote:
<quoted text>

But we live in different times. I don't think all of the inalienable rights you speak are possible anymore. And i don't understand how the people can topple a govt in the US. How would you even go about it?
Try reading this article for some insight

http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/Articles/t...

“Antisocialistic”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#136 Jan 7, 2013
woodtick57 wrote:
<quoted text>..No, it really didn't, did it? The civilians joining our military do not bring their priovate weapons to fight with, do they.

Why can't you just admit you were wrong? Are you again going to fail miserably in trying to show when the armed US citizenry has stopped tyranny from the US gov't? that last time was so embaraassing for you I didn't think you
d be stupid enought to try again, bvut if all you have i s gun powder for brains, go ahead, this should be funny the second time around...
What the hell does civilians joining the military have to do with forming a Militia? You see? If you had bothered to define a Militia first, you wouldn't look like a dumb ass now.

And again, you deflect and avoid the questions posed to you.
BTW, you should check your history before spouting off. The South was not embarrassed by the North. The North breathed a sigh of relief when they bluffed the South into thinking the North could continue fighting strongly. Look at the facts. The South killed far more Union Soldiers than the Union Soldiers killed Confederate Soldiers. The South kicked the Unions ass in the South. The South's mistake was forging into the North during Winter. And finally, despite the outcome of the Civil War, the South won the war of Reconstruction. So, you see, the second amendment did, in fact, serve its purpose.

Anything else you need educating on?

“Antisocialistic”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#137 Jan 7, 2013
woodtick57 wrote:
<quoted text>you could just answer the facts I have posted, or fail miserably trying ./...again...
You aren't too bright are you? Facts are facts, they aren't answered. Questions are answered.
If you pose any questions to me, that happen to contain facts, I'll address them.

“Antisocialistic”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#138 Jan 7, 2013
woodtick57 wrote:
<quoted text>what post of yours didn't I resopnd to? I showed them to all be nonsense...
You've shown nothing. I've posted it at least twice. Look back through the thread. I'm not repeating myself again just for you to deflect and ignore again.

In fact, lets do this, you answer my questions, and I'll answer yours.

“HUNTING RIGHTS ADVOCATE”

Since: Oct 08

Boggy Creek

#139 Jan 7, 2013
CrimeaRiver - IMP wrote:
<quoted text>
I appreciate it when people debate without adding dumbass, idiot, moron etc etc. I'm much more likely to read the rest of their post.
I'm getting a better idea of why Aemricans are so defensive of their 2nd Ammedment Rights. I'm not sure it works in practise but it is a part of your cultural heritage as well as your everyday life so I understand it a bit more than I did a few weeks ago.
Just to clear something up though. We have very few guns on the streets in the UK. And our gun laws have never allowed a civillians to carry firearms in public.
Rises in crime rates have nothing to do with guns here because we've never been allowed to use a gun to protect ourselves.
But our police don't carry guns either (apart from big events and airports). It goes to show that crime can be dealt with without the use of guns by civilians or police.
We've lived with a monarchy for over a 1000 years. And as you can see, it is possible for the people to make a change without taking up arms. Our monarchy no longer dictates our lives - this was done though political protest and not through bloodshed.
With all due respect, the history of your country is one of the most blood soaked violent stories ever told. The British traveled the world butchering and subjugating other cultures for centuries. Escaping British tyranny is one of the reasons the 2nd amendment exists. Just because the "British Empire" has been beaten back to the the British Isles and is no longer enslaving half of the known world does not indicate that you are a nonviolent people and does not ensure that your violent nature won't erupt again in the future. So enjoy the peace you have my friend, while it lasts, because it is a fragile thing and can evaporate in a heart beat. Tyranny, violence, and insanity know no borders. The threat will always be there no matter how hard we try to eradicate it. THAT THREAT and its history of rearing its ugly head when least expected is why there is a need for our second amendment.

Since: Mar 11

St. Croix valley

#140 Jan 7, 2013
Prep-for-Dep wrote:
<quoted text>
What the hell does civilians joining the military have to do with forming a Militia? You see? If you had bothered to define a Militia first, you wouldn't look like a dumb ass now.
And again, you deflect and avoid the questions posed to you.
BTW, you should check your history before spouting off. The South was not embarrassed by the North. The North breathed a sigh of relief when they bluffed the South into thinking the North could continue fighting strongly. Look at the facts. The South killed far more Union Soldiers than the Union Soldiers killed Confederate Soldiers. The South kicked the Unions ass in the South. The South's mistake was forging into the North during Winter. And finally, despite the outcome of the Civil War, the South won the war of Reconstruction. So, you see, the second amendment did, in fact, serve its purpose.
Anything else you need educating on?
the civil war had nothing to do with tyranny of the US gov't over it's citizens. it had to do with crybaby southerners having to do work themselves and get in line with the new world values.

Since: Mar 11

St. Croix valley

#141 Jan 7, 2013
Prep-for-Dep wrote:
<quoted text>
You aren't too bright are you? Facts are facts, they aren't answered. Questions are answered.
If you pose any questions to me, that happen to contain facts, I'll address them.
i have. You haven't.

You tried a few months back and it was embarrassing for you. you can try again...

“Antisocialistic”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#142 Jan 7, 2013
CrimeaRiver - IMP wrote:
<quoted text>I appreciate it when people debate without adding dumbass, idiot, moron etc etc. I'm much more likely to read the rest of their post.

I'm getting a better idea of why Aemricans are so defensive of their 2nd Ammedment Rights. I'm not sure it works in practise but it is a part of your cultural heritage as well as your everyday life so I understand it a bit more than I did a few weeks ago.

Just to clear something up though. We have very few guns on the streets in the UK. And our gun laws have never allowed a civillians to carry firearms in public.

Rises in crime rates have nothing to do with guns here because we've never been allowed to use a gun to protect ourselves.

But our police don't carry guns either (apart from big events and airports). It goes to show that crime can be dealt with without the use of guns by civilians or police.

We've lived with a monarchy for over a 1000 years. And as you can see, it is possible for the people to make a change without taking up arms. Our monarchy no longer dictates our lives - this was done though political protest and not through bloodshed.
The beauty of the second amendment is that it doesn't have to work in practice. As long as we have it, it works every day in theory.
As long as US Citizens are armed, the government doesn't want to test the theory.
The other thing you have to consider is this:
Government is growing larger on a daily basis. Who pays government salaries? Tax payers.
47% of US Citizens are on handout programs. That percentage is growing on a daily basis. Who pays for those handouts? Tax payers.
If US Citizens get fed up with the oppressive actions of the government, who do you think it is likely to be? The people receiving free handouts? Or, the people being over taxed to pay for the handouts and government salaries?
The government is not going to go to war war with their cash cow.
1 post removed

“HUNTING RIGHTS ADVOCATE”

Since: Oct 08

Boggy Creek

#144 Jan 7, 2013
woodtick57 wrote:
<quoted text>yeah, someone already posted that same quote...parrots much?
Did you have a point with it?
I posted it twice because you didn't seem to get it the first time. The "point" is glaringly clear for all those with enough intelligence to see it. "Militia" = "the people" Judging by the fact that you missed the point a second time.......
crzzzd

Ellwood City, PA

#145 Jan 7, 2013
youtube.com/watch... …… Getting off on a "Erotic Phone Artist".

“Antisocialistic”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#146 Jan 7, 2013
woodtick57 wrote:
<quoted text>the civil war had nothing to do with tyranny of the US gov't over it's citizens. it had to do with crybaby southerners having to do work themselves and get in line with the new world values.
Again. Not too swift. Slavery was not the sole issue of the Civil War.

“Antisocialistic”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#147 Jan 7, 2013
woodtick57 wrote:
<quoted text>i have. You haven't.

You tried a few months back and it was embarrassing for you. you can try again...
Like I said. More deflection and avoidance. Big surprise.
Bob Lewis

AOL

#148 Jan 7, 2013
America has been very forunate so far. Of course, the transition from America into ObamaLand is terrifying to many. If Obama keeps working over time to divide us all God only knows how bad things could get for us. So sad.

“Antisocialistic”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#149 Jan 7, 2013
woodtick57 wrote:
<quoted text>the civil war had nothing to do with tyranny of the US gov't over it's citizens. it had to do with crybaby southerners having to do work themselves and get in line with the new world values.
Although you are wrong. It was you that brought it up.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

US Politics Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 2 min Zonker 1,708,585
News Many Christian conservatives are backing Alabam... 2 min Voter 1,963
News Plurality of Americans think Trump is failing (Mar '17) 4 min rwreck86 60,242
News 'Get on the Right Side': Shooting Survivors Dec... 4 min big tiki 329
News FBI in public fight with Trump over releasing R... 4 min southern at heart 1,715
News Thousands Protest Roe V. Wade Decision (Jan '08) 9 min ThomasA 330,635
News Arm Our Kids Now 12 min HELLO 40
News 2 dead, 17 wounded in shooting at Kentucky high... 36 min Truth 884
More from around the web