You are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–] [deleted] 0 points 17 points (+17|-0) ago  (edited ago)

[Deleted]

0
7

[–] Oh_Well_ian [S] 0 points 7 points (+7|-0) ago  (edited ago)

You are 100% correct !!

We had just fought for and won our freedom and independence ( w/arms ) from an oppressive regime and the 2nd Amendment was specifically written as protection from potential domestic regimes that naturally arise from consolidated power and influence. There should be absolutely no debate over this. The 2nd Amendment was written intentionally brief and succinct to deter from misinterpretation or legal gymnastics.

Look no further than the following Amendment in the Bill of Rights for confirmation of the intent of the SECOND. The 3rd Amendment should ALWAYS be mentioned with the 2nd because it confirms the intent of the framers in linking them together:

'No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law'

Equally brief and specific, both the 2nd and the 3rd Amendment address the infringement of the British Army by use of force on the American people and continued the concerns laid out in the Declaration of Independence.

0
3

[–] derkataIog 0 points 3 points (+3|-0) ago 

all correct, except the whole "won our freedom and independence" thing. that's just historically wrong. check out the bank bills of 1791, the creation of the monopoly over federal currency's creation and issuance (and that the founders then promptly gave that monopoly to a private institution run by european bankers - - the same bankers that paid the french to re-arm and help the american colonists against george iii).

sorry buddy, the u.s. never became independent nor free. it just switched from kings to bankers.

but on the 2nd amendment? you're correct. shall not. and on the declaration, correct again. it is americans' right and DUTY to remove such tyrannous government and install one that will, you know, be better.

0
1

[–] 12310412? 0 points 1 point (+1|-0) ago 

but a commandment to overthrow the government if they try to take that right.

It's more a commandment to overthrow the government if they try to take ANY innate right.

0
1

[–] WhistlingIdiot 0 points 1 point (+1|-0) ago 

"That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security"