A well regulated militia, i.e. the people are the security of a “free” State. You see that as a national defense against other warring nations, when the Framers were specifically talking about internal government. You have to remember they had just won their freedom from a repressive government. They did not want a repeat of shackles they had just broken off.
Oklahoma, I love this State.
- Thread starter Wallet
- Start date
A well regulated militia, i.e. the people are the security of a “free” State. You see that as a national defense against other warring nations, when the Framers were specifically talking about internal government. You have to remember they had just won their freedom from a repressive government. They did not want a repeat of shackles they had just broken off.
There is no point to argue with die hards. The best choice is to avoid giving your business to those you think harm the country. Each man's free choice. I actually have more respect for die hards than for shallow people who believe one thing but do another. The worst are those who bitch all day but continue to live in places they hate or work at places they hate or surround themselves with rednecks when they have zero respect for rednecks.
Are Vermonter’s rednecks or is that limited to only southern states?
Redneckery (brand new word) is a state of mind.
Liberalism/Conservatism is truly a left brain, right brain issue.
The definition of the word militia may be debatable, but the founding fathers left no doubt that they intended for individuals to have the right to bear arms.
"The Constitution shall never be construed to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms."
- Samuel Adams
"A free people ought not only to be armed, but disciplined."
- George Washington
"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms."
- Thomas Jefferson
"What country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance. Let them take arms."
- Thomas Jefferson
"Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed, as they are in almost every country in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops."
- Noah Webster
Little more can reasonably be aimed at, with respect to the people at large, than to have them properly armed and equipped; and in order to see that this be not neglected, it will be necessary to assemble them once or twice in the course of a year. [Federalist 29]
So every six months or so everyone with a gun has to assemble and have their weapons checked... Coz if not.. ain't very well regulated.
Funny though how they reformed the Continental Army into the US Army. Seeing as you just need a bunch of guys.
Idea was of it's time.
18% if that 3.9 million or so, slaves. Less population than Ireland alone. They kind of needed to include every man whether it made sense or not as any two European countries could have taken over.
This may give people an idea of how insignificant the fledgling USA was in 1800, only thing preserving it was the ocean.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_population_in_1800
So every six months or so everyone with a gun has to assemble and have their weapons checked... Coz if not.. ain't very well regulated.
Funny though how they reformed the Continental Army into the US Army. Seeing as you just need a bunch of guys.
Idea was of it's time.
18% if that 3.9 million or so, slaves. Less population than Ireland alone. They kind of needed to include every man whether it made sense or not as any two European countries could have taken over.
This may give people an idea of how insignificant the fledgling USA was in 1800, only thing preserving it was the ocean.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_population_in_1800
Last edited:
Except they had just defeated the world’s largest superpower of that time and had formed an alliance with France. The USA was a legitimate military force coming out of the revolutionary war and continually increased it’s size and ability.
The intent of the Framer’s is clear, they wanted an armed populace to keep the newly formed government in line.
You can debate the militia term till the proverbial cows come home, it doesn’t negate the original intent.
Now you can argue a lightly armed populace vs. the might and resources of today’s military, would it even be effective? But an individual’s right to protect himself, his life, liberty, & happiness, by bearing arms, should not be infringed, SCOTUS has upheld that time and time again.
You both misunderstand what I said. I am not saying the armed citizenry have to be part of the military. I'm saying the constitution is clear that they have to be a well regulated milita. AKA, armed citizens with appropriate training, yes with the purpose of uprising against the government, if necessary. It's the "well-regulated militia" bit that most gun nuts seem to skip over when they propose guns for all.
What I will never understand is why you and others suck on the dicks of some founding fathers as if they could foresee the future or could not be wrong on issues. The amendments were purposely called amendments to allow for changes. In ever other part of life do reasonable and logical people acknowledge that progress calls for changes and adjustments. Past practices are adjusted or done away with if they do not suit practicality in changing times anymore. Yet, here stand some die hards who believe everything some founding father said equals the word of God. Your country is one of the youngest in existence with very little experience and benefit of hindsight yet here you stand and behave as if every dot in the constitution or amendments is set in stone and can't be changed.
I am all for a democratic process where majorities have their way. The constitution is purposely designed and drafted to make it very hard to change but it can be changed and amended. If a majority in Oklahoma or elsewhere decides that open or concealed carry should be legal then I think I can respect and appreciate that. But in most of the open carry states there is no popular majority for that. Notwithstanding that fact, it's stupid to stand there and say that founding fathers said one thing and it can't be changed or adjusted. That is a redneck mindset that willfully plays dumb and pretends that something can't be changed when it can. Again if a popular majority decides it wants its way on issues then a democratic society should respect that. But don't tell anyone that anything the founding fathers said or wrote can't be changed.
I am all for a democratic process where majorities have their way. The constitution is purposely designed and drafted to make it very hard to change but it can be changed and amended. If a majority in Oklahoma or elsewhere decides that open or concealed carry should be legal then I think I can respect and appreciate that. But in most of the open carry states there is no popular majority for that. Notwithstanding that fact, it's stupid to stand there and say that founding fathers said one thing and it can't be changed or adjusted. That is a redneck mindset that willfully plays dumb and pretends that something can't be changed when it can. Again if a popular majority decides it wants its way on issues then a democratic society should respect that. But don't tell anyone that anything the founding fathers said or wrote can't be changed.