promotion image of download ymail app
Promoted
Anonymous
Anonymous asked in Politics & GovernmentPolitics · 10 years ago

What don't liberals understand about the Second Amendment?

"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.'' Watch, some liberals will call me a ''Redneck Bible-thumper'' for typing this.

Update:

I'm not a republican either, liberals. And I'm mostly talking about the far-left socialist extremists.

Update 2:

I mean, it seems pretty clear to me, right?

Update 3:

@African Girl, try again, I'm not a conservative.

20 Answers

Relevance
  • tom
    Lv 6
    10 years ago
    Favorite Answer

    I'm not going to call you a "Redneck Bible-thumper". What i will say is that you probably know as much about the second amendment as the liberals do.

    What don't people understand about the second amendment? Hmm, most of it, especially the right to bear arms.

    The right to keep arms allows individuals, before due process, the right to own weapons, so the militia has a ready supply of weapons in a time of need.

    The right to bear arms, allows individuals, before due process, the right to be in the militia, so the militia has a ready supply of personnel in a time of need.

    It makes sense. The amendment begins with "A well regulated militia", then talks about how it can protect the security of the free state.

    What many people do not understand is that the second amendment does not actually protect individuals, it merely PREVENTS the US federal govt from doing something. So while an individual can keep arms, the actual amendment prevents the US federal govt stopping individuals being able to buy arms. They can ban certain types of arms, but they cannot make arms difficult or expensive to buy. Individuals have to be able to buy them, unless they have been convicted.

    The right to bear arms is much harder to understand, but to make it easier i'll show the evidence that proves beyond any doubt that the right to bear arms is the right to be in the militia and not the a right to carry arms as the right tries to claim.

    George Washington said in the Sentiments of a Peace Established in 1783:

    "every Citizen who enjoys the protection of a free Government, owes not only a proportion of his property, but even of his personal services to the defence of it, and consequently that the Citizens of America... from 18 to 50 Years of Age should be borne on the Militia Rolls,"

    "by making it universally reputable to bear Arms and disgraceful to decline having a share in the performance of Military duties; in fine, by keeping up in Peace "a well regulated, and disciplined Militia," we shall take the fairest and best method to preserve, for a long time to come, the happiness, dignity and Independence of our Country.“

    Congress, while making different draft versions of the future second amendment, used "render military service" and "bear arms" as synonyms, replacing one with the other in the religiously scrupulous clause.

    Mr Gerry said in congress at the time:

    "They can declare who are those religiously scrupulous, and prevent them from bearing arms. What, sir, is the use of a militia? It is to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty."

    1776 North Carolina state constitution:  "That the people have a right to bear arms, for the defence of the State;"

    The right to bear arms was only for the defence of the state. Carrying arms cannot be for the defence of the state, but having a right to be in the militia can be.

    1780 Massachusetts state constitution: "The people have a right to keep and to bear arms for the common defence."

    Similar.

    Robertson v. Baldwin, 165 U.S. 275, 280 (1897) the supreme court said:

    “the right of the people to keep and bear arms (article 2) is not infringed by laws prohibiting the carrying of concealed weapons;”

    This is what most people do not understand about the second amendment, their political leaning does not affect their understanding, it affects their misunderstanding with the right claiming one thing and the left something else, but both are wrong!

    • Commenter avatarLogin to reply the answers
  • 10 years ago

    The funny thing is that the right of the people to keep and bear arms has been infringed, without a constitutional amendment.

    Strictly speaking, it does not limit people to what type of "arms".

    Do I think people should have a mini-gun mounted to their truck? No

    But the government should add an Amendment giving them the right to limit what type of weapon can be owned, since at the moment they are enforcing laws that infringe on the language of the 2nd amendment.

    • Commenter avatarLogin to reply the answers
  • Anonymous
    10 years ago

    Well first of all to protect yourself from a rouge government a well regulated militia isn't going to do anything unless you have a few aircraft carriers, a fleet AWACs, attack subs with cruise missiles, attack helos, some heavy transport, a few hundred F-18s or F-16s, some Predator drones, nuclear warheads, and an annual budget of three quarters of a trillion dollars. That rifle or handgun isn't going to do much for you. In other words the 2nd amendment is obsolete so why keep it when it is killing people.

    • Jonathan7 years agoReport

      a military cant afford all those modern military weapons without the tax support of the people. you are thinking short sided. without the necessary tax money, with citizens holding 300 million guns, it could be a very long cold war of attrition that the military LOSES!

    • Commenter avatarLogin to reply the answers
  • Anonymous
    10 years ago

    Since it begins "A well regulated militia, being necessary..."

    It's obviously referring to the need for local people to be part of that militia, thus needing to be armed.

    Since in the following two hundred years we have developed a system of law enforcement and armed services an "armed militia" is no longer required, therefore citizens do not NEED to be armed.

    None of the Constitutional amendments make any mention of persons needing to bear arms to protect themselves, their family or their property.

    Second Amendment advocates want to turn the USA back to 1870 so they can swagger around with their guns on view to prove how "manly" they are. What it actually proves is how scared they are and how inadequate they are.

    Source(s): Sensible gun control - not ban.
    • Commenter avatarLogin to reply the answers
  • How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
  • Anonymous
    10 years ago

    The funny thing is.. the militia is mentioned again in the 5th amendment, and is obviously a separate entity from the "land and naval forces".

    Amendment V

    Rights in criminal cases

    No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb, nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

    Source(s): The disgusting part is the justification for eminent domain comes from "nor shall private property... without just compensation." But actually that comes from the reference to anyone who committed a capital crime, because their lands would be taken if they were accused. But why would people know ANYTHING about English Common Law at that time? It's not like our constitution was drafted to fi---wait it was.
    • Commenter avatarLogin to reply the answers
  • 10 years ago

    Why don't cons understand history and how wars were fought in the 1700s? Why don't they understand that arms back then were so unpredictable that you had to be able to "see the whites of their eyes" before you shot, or you wouldn't hit your target? Why don't cons understand that it took over a minute to load just ONE shot?

    Why don't cons understand that we didn't have an Army, a Navy, or a Marine Corps in the 1700s - that our "army" was a group of farmers who had guns - that was the Militia.

    Life was completely different back then - duh!

    Today our Militia has plenty of arms - look at what our Army, Navy, and Marine Corps has in weaponry.

    The problem with cons is that they need a gun or a pit bull or a Hummer to make themselves feel powerful...

    • Commenter avatarLogin to reply the answers
  • 10 years ago

    I see no reason to expect anybody to call you a "Bible-thumper" for posting this. I'd say it's about 50/50 as far as "red-neck" goes.

    In all honesty, it only seems clear in the sense that it calls for something nobody in their right mind would support (freedom to possess whatever sort of weapon you might want, regardless of how deadly it may be). I'm content with the current prevailing interpretation, however.

    • Commenter avatarLogin to reply the answers
  • 3 years ago

    i'm liberal and have consistently owned weapons. even with the incontrovertible fact that, there continues to be no stable argument as to why the popular citizen could have get right of entry to to committed weapons of conflict like completely computerized device weapons.

    • Commenter avatarLogin to reply the answers
  • 10 years ago

    they think if guns are banned from citizens people will magically stop committing murders though obviously we would have less deaths but not many and would it be worth it ? do the benefits of having a disarmed population out weigh the risks not a chance in hell.

    I mean look at the UK they banned handguns and knife crimes and robbery's more than doubled

    • Commenter avatarLogin to reply the answers
  • 10 years ago

    b/c a few semi auto rifles cannot overthrow a government and this was written by Thomas Jefferson who believed a revolution was necessary every ten years (we should be able to have nukes or drones if this law served its purpose)

    • Commenter avatarLogin to reply the answers
Still have questions? Get your answers by asking now.