A Well Regulated Militia

by Jennifer Freeman

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.

-- 2nd Amendment to the U.S. Constitution

Why is it that when it comes to the Second Amendment, anti-gunners only see the words, "National Guard"?

The United States was founded by English subjects (residing in the American colonies) who took up arms when their government's tyrannical behavior became too much to bear. After winning the revolution, our Founding Fathers declared certain rights inalienable and therefore the law of the land. The right to keep and bear arms was named second only to freedom of expression. Clearly the need for the private ownership of firearms was to keep the government in check which would hopefully prevent future acts of tyranny.

Guns have been prevalent in our society ever since. The private ownership of firearms has been widely exercised and accepted throughout this nation's history. We are seeing more and more, however, an attempt by certain judges, politicians, teachers, media figures, law enforcement personnel, and anti-gun activists proclaim that private gun ownership was never intended by our Founding Fathers or that the right has become outdated. The most recent example occurred in a Washington D.C. appellate court which ruled that the right to keep and bear arms does not apply to individuals.

This is a shocking and alarming claim that should have people taking to the streets in mass protest. This judge, along with many others in this country, support the same type of disarmament policies used by rogue governments around the world. The type of governments who abuse their people mercilessly and keep them barely able the survive. Even "civilized" countries like England are at the mercy of roving gangs unable to defend themselves without prosecution from their elected government.

Unfortunately, American outcry is hardly noticeable. Many Americans have adopted a business-as-usual attitude toward our rights. They are too busy watching TV or shopping at a global big box store to be concerned with trivial things like freedom. Someone else will do it for them.

If you're taking the time to read this article, chances are you have more than the average level of concern for your country. Your job now is to educate your fellow man and woman. You may have to keep repeating the same things over and over again at the risk of sounding like a broken record. It's not enough for a few of us to defend our rights. Your friends and family members must also take responsibility. Make them understand that. Schedule a group appointment with your local Senator advising him or her how you feel about recent developments in D.C. Make sure it doesn't happen in your town or state.

Liberty and the freedom America has to offer is the only hope for mankind. If we allow ourselves to be disarmed -- if we fail to win this fight for liberty -- all of mankind will descend into darkness with no reasonable opportunity for reversal. Historically, gun confiscation has always lead to genocide. It is not unreasonable, therefore, to treat your gun rights as if your very life depends on them.

http://www.libertybelles.org/articles/militia.htm

1/18/2007 1:07:52 AM

It must be fun to write editorials when you don't feel obligated to address your opponents' actual argument.

PS. Why can't gun nuts realize that the difference between their interpretation of the 2nd Amendment and the "liberal" interpretation is minuscule?

1/18/2007 1:17:58 AM

do you have any thoughts of your own or do you just feel the need to post opinions from other people as facts?

1/18/2007 8:48:52 AM

when did he ever say it was fact?

1/18/2007 8:50:53 AM

^^^ Bullshit. Many Democrats talk of "taxing ammunition out of existence," as the late Senator Patrick Moynihan did. And others claim that--according to the Second Amendment--only the National Guard has the right to "keep and bear arms," as US Representative Sheila Jackson Lee has said. And there are many other examples of such rhetoric.

PS: And anyone that happens to support the Second Amendment is a "gun nut"? STFU!

1/18/2007 9:48:09 AM

so, one ex-senator and one representative?

damn. that is a lot

1/18/2007 10:02:32 AM

Barbara Boxer, Dianne Feinstein, Ted Kennedy, Nancy Pelosi, Charles Schumer, and Hitlery Clinton. All very high ranking and prominent liberals who's interpretation of the second amendment is vastly different from "Gun Nuts". I can name more if you like.

1/18/2007 10:10:18 AM

Why do gun owners get up in arms about this shit? Do they really think someone is going to take away their right to own a gun? That's some of the most moronic talk I have ever heard.

1/18/2007 10:22:09 AM

^^^ Can you read?

Quote :

"And there are many other examples of such rhetoric."

^ Because without the right to keep and bear arms, none of our other rights will exist for very long. BTW, many cities have banned handguns already--but only law-abiding citizens obey the law. Unfortunately, the criminals in these cities are still armed quite well.

[Edited on January 18, 2007 at 10:35 AM. Reason : ]

V You'll never get it, no matter how hard I try to explain.

[Edited on January 18, 2007 at 10:43 AM. Reason : .]

[Edited on January 18, 2007 at 10:44 AM. Reason : VV Exactly--New Orleans.]

1/18/2007 10:30:09 AM

Quote :

"^ Because without the right to keep and bear arms, none of our other rights will exist for very long."

Do you honestly think a milita could form in the present day US that could topple some sort of a dictator or oppresive regime if it were to form? Dude, you're talking hand guns and possibly full auto assault weapons versus tanks, stealth bombers, and missiles.

1/18/2007 10:39:44 AM

Quote :

"Why do gun owners get up in arms about this shit? Do they really think someone is going to take away their right to own a gun? That's some of the most moronic talk I have ever heard."

Yes, it is completely and utterly unthinkable that the government would send the police and the national guard door to door throughout an american city and confiscate legaly owned firearms from civilians. Certainly there are no recent occurrences of this to give one reason to think that given the opportunity, they wouldn't. None whatsoever.

Quote :

"Do you honestly think a milita could form in the present day US that could topple some sort of a dictator or oppresive regime if it were to form? Dude, you're talking hand guns and possibly full auto assault weapons versus tanks, stealth bombers, and missiles."

And yet, to read the news, we're losing the war in Iraq.

hmmmmm

[Edited on January 18, 2007 at 10:43 AM. Reason : asdf]

1/18/2007 10:42:45 AM

republicans dont even have to play the fear card on this issue, bloggers take care of it for them

thats awesome

1/18/2007 10:44:46 AM

Ugh, taking away the right to bear arms and taking guns away in an area where martial law like conditions are happening because of roving bands of murdering militias are two very different things my good friend.

And thats a great non sequitur on your second point.

1/18/2007 10:46:49 AM

^ Bullshit. He's right on point--you just refuse to take off the ideological blinders long enough to see it.

1/18/2007 10:49:01 AM

Most democrats DON'T want to take your guns.

1/18/2007 11:03:18 AM

^ But many do. Let's hope that many never becomes most.

V Come try to take my guns and I'll show you how scared I am (oh, the irony).

[Edited on January 18, 2007 at 11:23 AM. Reason : Just shut up--please?]

1/18/2007 11:12:29 AM

Quote :

"^ Bullshit. He's right on point--you just refuse to take off the ideological blinders long enough to see it."

It's pretty hard to have an idealogical blinders on when I don't even have an ideology.

Man, you're really scared 24/7 aren't you? You probably call into Michael Savage nightly, ranting about how liberalism is going to end your life (oh, the irony).

1/18/2007 11:14:29 AM

You probably call Al Franken daily and complain about how Bush is dumb and the Iraq was is unjust

1/18/2007 11:35:20 AM

Quote :

"and the Iraq was is unjust"

The Iraq was unjust!

1/18/2007 11:44:54 AM

Quote :

"Why do gun owners get up in arms about this shit? Do they really think someone is going to take away their right to own a gun? That's some of the most moronic talk I have ever heard."

Yes, we do indeed think that there will be more attempts to take away our right to be armed.
They already have banned/tried to ban many different types of guns.
I'm not worried about them trying to take away my double barrelled shotgun or single shot 22 rifle.
I'm worried about them trying to take my AKs, AR-15, semi automatic hanguns, and normal capacity magazines.

1/18/2007 11:59:53 AM

Quote :

"Why do gun owners get up in arms about this shit? Do they really think someone is going to take away their right to own a gun?"

Yes, I do. Ask the British.

Second, while we may not be able to take on a well-oiled army in the field of battle, citizen-turned-soldiers could certainly be a substantial problem for an invasion force trying to run house to house...ask the soldiers in Iraq. Contrary to some ideology, we have not outgrown the need for the 2nd Amendment. And the day they try to take away reasonable weaponry from me (my shotgun or rifle or personal handgun) there are going to be some dead mother fuckers for the attempt. The same way I would react if they tried to invade any other of my constitutional rights.

1/18/2007 12:05:56 PM

no one is going to take away our guns, guys.

enough of these threads already. goddamn.

1/18/2007 12:28:33 PM

Its been said before, but I will repeat it.

After the Republicans have trampled on the first, fourth, fifth etc amendments why do you still trust them to protect the second?

1/18/2007 12:29:06 PM

Quote :

"Ugh, taking away the right to bear arms and taking guns away in an area where martial law like conditions are happening because of roving bands of murdering militias are two very different things my good friend."

One of the purposes of owning a gun is so that in a shit hits the fan situation where the established law and order have abandoned their posts and bands or roving murdering militias are about, you can properly defend yourself and your family. In other words, thats exactly the time when it's most important to have your guns.

Quote :

"Second, while we may not be able to take on a well-oiled army in the field of battle, citizen-turned-soldiers could certainly be a substantial problem for an invasion force trying to run house to house...ask the soldiers in Iraq. Contrary to some ideology, we have not outgrown the need for the 2nd Amendment. "

One of these days I need to re run the numbers, but the last time I did it worked out pretty well. Basically if we take the US population and divide it in half, then take one of those halves and arm all the people aged 18-50 and had them fight the US armed forces at a rate of 50 civilians killed per 1 armed force member, the civilian forces would still come out ahead, and that's not counting all the people who didn't fight at all.

1/18/2007 1:04:47 PM

Quote :

"In other words, thats exactly the time when it's most important to have your guns."

Well, if they confiscate guns from everyone, what is the problem? And the military stepped in when the cops left town. Didn't sound like to me they needed to have the guns for protection.

Quote :

"One of these days I need to re run the numbers, but the last time I did it worked out pretty well. Basically if we take the US population and divide it in half, then take one of those halves and arm all the people aged 18-50 and had them fight the US armed forces at a rate of 50 civilians killed per 1 armed force member, the civilian forces would still come out ahead, and that's not counting all the people who didn't fight at all."

Yea, thats fun math and all, but it isn't realistic under any scenario that is on the US radar.

[Edited on January 18, 2007 at 1:40 PM. Reason : y]

1/18/2007 1:35:05 PM

Quote :

"Well, if the confiscate guns from everyone, what is the problem?"

Even though I don't know what "if the confiscate guns from everyone" means, thats not nearly as imbecillic as implying that they could confiscate guns from criminals who have unregistered guns

1/18/2007 1:39:14 PM

you can't just infer that there should be a 'y' after 'the'?

no, you're smarter than that. you just want to troll. SURPRISE

1/18/2007 1:41:58 PM

^yeah, because you only choosing to comment on that and ignoring my point about not being able to confiscate guns from criminals is so much better than what i did

1/18/2007 1:43:35 PM

confiscating guns is stupid.

i think ive been pretty clear that im not worried about guns being taken away.

i dont support it and im not worried about it ever happening

1/18/2007 1:46:03 PM

my main point in my most recent retort to typea's claim of "Well, if they confiscate guns from everyone, what is the problem" is that even if they wanted to confiscate guns from everyone, they couldnt confiscate them from people if they werent registered, aka guns criminals buy on the streets...so however unlikely it is that they even would attempt to confiscate guns, they would only be taking away the ones that were registered legally, aka that they knew about

1/18/2007 1:52:07 PM

So what you are saying is soldiers couldn't do house to house searches to find guns?

Furthermore, upon not finding these guns, they also couldn't shoot or arrest the roving gangs, or otherwise protect the scared civilians in these martial law areas?

1/18/2007 1:54:11 PM

So your solution would be to go to EVERY SINGLE HOUSE in the country and search each house fully? That would only take about 10 years

1/18/2007 1:56:14 PM

There you go again, getting completely lost in what the thread was talking about. Thing is, this time, I'm not bothering to set you straight again. You're not intelligent. You can't follow simple thread progression. You don't belong here.

1/18/2007 2:00:47 PM

change the subject when you get your shitty opinions shot down, surprise suprise

1/18/2007 2:02:22 PM

First it was the 1934 Machine Gun act, then it was this then it was that. This is the slowest slippery slope I've ever witnessed in my life.

1/18/2007 2:11:10 PM

Change the subject? You're the one who threw out the "every house in America" bullshit when no one has said anything about that. Can you not follow a conversation when the text is right in front of your face? It's not like it scrolls by fast or something, you can go back and re-read.

Then, on key, when people get tired of being bogged down by your lunacy, you toss out some "your opinion got shot down" blah blah blah mess that you always do.

And yet I am the bad guy for calling the morAns out. You're sad man. Real sad.

1/18/2007 2:21:51 PM

Quote :

"Well, if they confiscate guns from everyone, what is the problem? "

How do you propose they do that?

Quote :

"And the military stepped in when the cops left town. Didn't sound like to me they needed to have the guns for protection. "

If the military stepped in and there was no reason to have a gun for protection, then why the need to confiscate the guns in the first place?

Quote :

"Yea, thats fun math and all, but it isn't realistic under any scenario that is on the US radar. "

How do you figure? The only big assumption being made is that half the people aged 18-50 would fight, but I think it's reasonable to assume that in the event that there's a real conflict between the civilian US and the government, I don't think it's too far of a stretch to think that many more people would take up arms. Certainly the casualty rate isn't unheard of. Vietnam was about 1 US per every 24 VC/NVA, certainly 1 per 50 over here is not unrealistic.

1/18/2007 2:58:45 PM

Quote :

"If the military stepped in and there was no reason to have a gun for protection, then why the need to confiscate the guns in the first place?"

That was part of the protection. It makes it easier for them to protect you if they have less people to worry about shooting them.

Quote :

"but I think it's reasonable to assume that in the event that there's a real conflict between the civilian US and the government, I don't think it's too far of a stretch to think that many more people would take up arms."

Are you kidding? Dude, we won't even leave the house to vote. It would take millions of hungry stomachs before people decided to rise up against our government.

Quote :

"Certainly the casualty rate isn't unheard of. Vietnam was about 1 US per every 24 VC/NVA, certainly 1 per 50 over here is not unrealistic."

What are you talking about? They have tanks and planes and helicopters to protect the assets. Americans that are used to a posh lifestyle aren't going to be as nearly resilient as the Vietcong and Arab extremist. One tank sweep or bombing run through a neighborhood wipes out thousands. Use your head for once.

1/18/2007 3:12:07 PM

fuck off

1/18/2007 3:20:09 PM

Quote :

"Are you kidding? Dude, we won't even leave the house to vote. It would take millions of hungry stomachs before people decided to rise up against our government."

You're right. The American people would never rise up against their government in armed conflict over perceived injustice.

BTW, I'd like to recommend a book to you I just finished reading. It is called 1776 by David McCullough.

1/18/2007 3:43:01 PM

225 yeas later Americans are at a state where they wouldn't rise up against the government.

1/18/2007 3:50:45 PM

^^ Missed the entire point.

Dude, I'm not giving up my air condition, cable TV, and internet to go shoot at our government.

1/18/2007 3:54:32 PM

haha

TypeA accuses someone of missing a point

lol

1/18/2007 4:12:57 PM

Please add something relevant to the thread besides trolling.

1/18/2007 4:21:21 PM

^ok, maybe you can address this then

Quote :

"So what you are saying is soldiers couldn't do house to house searches to find guns? "

are they just going to do these searches on some houses or are they going to search every house?

1/18/2007 4:23:53 PM

Depends on how large the martial law area is.

1/18/2007 4:35:15 PM

What if it were the whole country? Would it be feasible to check every house? What would you do?

1/18/2007 4:37:34 PM

Of course it wouldn't be feasible.

1/18/2007 4:40:43 PM

well then, in case you missed the last part, what would you do in that situation?

1/18/2007 4:44:07 PM

In what situation?

1/18/2007 4:52:45 PM