NRA

[swede]

The discussion in this thread has focused on militias a bit more than on the individual's right to own a handgun to protect life and property, or a rifle to hunt with.

The accepted original intention of the Second Amendment is that it sought to preserve the public's right to form an armed militia in case of emergency to prevent a government (such as the British) from tyrannizing the people through the use of a permanent army. People like James Madison and Webster even argued that the Second Amendment was unnecessary because they thought no government could ever form an permanent army that was large and powerful enough to defeat a militia.

Things have changed considerably in the last 200+ years. The firepower of any standing army of any country in the world is vastly superior to what any civil militia could hope to put together. Who seriously thinks that the original rationale behind the 2nd amendment (the right to bears arms protects us against tyranny) has any real meaning to us today? What scenarios do you envision where the right to bear arms would contribute meaningfully to preserving liberty?

Afghanistan during the Soviet invasion.

When the time comes, all it takes is guts and a monkeywrench to fight.

Obama is proving the opposite to be true as well. You can be the strongest nation in the world and still surrender if your leader is gutless enough.

[hoosier]

The discussion in this thread has focused on militias a bit more than on the individual's right to own a handgun to protect life and property, or a rifle to hunt with.

The accepted original intention of the Second Amendment is that it sought to preserve the public's right to form an armed militia in case of emergency to prevent a government (such as the British) from tyrannizing the people through the use of a permanent army. People like James Madison and Webster even argued that the Second Amendment was unnecessary because they thought no government could ever form an permanent army that was large and powerful enough to defeat a militia.

Things have changed considerably in the last 200+ years. The firepower of any standing army of any country in the world is vastly superior to what any civil militia could hope to put together. Who seriously thinks that the original rationale behind the 2nd amendment (the right to bears arms protects us against tyranny) has any real meaning to us today? What scenarios do you envision where the right to bear arms would contribute meaningfully to preserving liberty?

Afghanistan during the Soviet invasion.

Supplied by the CIA. Hardly an example of a civilian militia. But that still doesn't address the fact that we're talking about the US. Which aggressor or tyrant is a US civilian militia going to save us from? To me the whole thing smacks of arrested adolescent fantasy movies like Wolverines.

[HarveyWallbangers]

Which aggressor or tyrant is a US civilian militia going to save us from?

Socialism or Death!

[SkinBasket]

Which aggressor or tyrant is a US civilian militia going to save us from?

I don't know, maybe our government. Read some history. Stranger shit has happened.

[SkinBasket]

Harvey beat me to Zool's mom, now he beats me to the punch here. There's something unnatural about that fella.

[hoosier]

Civilian militias are going to protect us against our government. Right.

[retailguy]

Civilian militias are going to protect us against our government. Right.

As farfetched as it may seem, if the choice is Obama, or the militia? Tex sign me up, I'm coming down!

[Little Whiskey]

Civilian militias are going to protect us against our government. Right.

I'll bet there were a few that thought like you in 1776 too. A bunch of colonies rising up to take on, at the time, the most powerful nation in the world.

[packinpatland]

Civilian militias are going to protect us against our government. Right.

As farfetched as it may seem, if the choice is Obama, or the militia? Tex sign me up, I'm coming down!

Yes, now it's time to move this to the FYI.

[Freak Out]

How in the hell did this puss filled colostomy bag of a thread get started again? The latest slaughter on American streets the past week? Sad stuff to be sure but Americans will never give up their guns...period. The cold dead hands thing is true. The Obama boogeyman thing just cracks me up though...he's going to take our guns and ammo away....

Didn't we just go through this in DC? It's a local issue and will remain one for the most part. Congress or the Prez will never take away the right of the US citizen to own a gun.

[HowardRoark]

Didn't we just go through this in DC? It's a local issue and will remain one for the most part. Congress or the Prez will never take away the right of the US citizen to own a gun.

Got this from a NRA friend today......

Pertaining specifically to the Second Amendment, the State of Montana, in
particular, seems to have it all together. In anticipation of the recent
Heller Supreme Court decision, a host of Montana's senators and
representatives--along with its Secretary of State-- proposed a resolution
stating "that any 'collective rights' holding in D.C. v. Heller
will violate
Montana's compact with the United States, the contract by which Montana
entered the Union in 1889."

The Montana resolution recalls, "When Montana entered into
statehood and adopted the Compact as a part of the Montana Constitution in
1889, included was a provision guaranteeing the right to bear arms to 'any
person.'"

The resolution continues, "To be clear, the wording of the right to bear
arms reservation in the Montana constitution is exactly the same today as it
was in 1884."

Furthermore, the Montana resolution says, "There is no question that the
contract into which Montana entered for statehood was predicated upon an
understanding that the people of Montana would benefit from an individual
and personal right to bear arms, protected from governmental interference by
both the federal and Montana constitutions. That was the clear intent of the
parties to the contract."

The resolution ended by stating sternly, "A collective rights holding in
Heller would not only open the Pandora's box of unilaterally morphing
contracts, it would also poise Montana to claim appropriate and historically
entrenched remedies for contract violation."

In other words, representatives and senators in the State of Montana
unequivocally put Washington, D.C., on notice that it would not tolerate the
infringement of its citizens' right to keep and bear arms. I don't
think I'm
reading anything into the resolution by assuming that they were implying
that they would secede before they let the federal government trample their
Second Amendment liberties. (Plus, I've just been told that New Hampshire
may also be preparing to propose such a resolution.

[HowardRoark]

Civilian militias are going to protect us against our government. Right.

The President will hire and fire CEOs of major industries and set salaries of middle managers across the country. Right.

[packinpatland]

Take a few minutes, this is interesting reading.

http://www.bradycenter.org/xshare/pdf/reports/guns-2008election.pdf

[hoosier]

Didn't we just go through this in DC? It's a local issue and will remain one for the most part. Congress or the Prez will never take away the right of the US citizen to own a gun.

Got this from a NRA friend today......

Pertaining specifically to the Second Amendment, the State of Montana, in
particular, seems to have it all together. In anticipation of the recent
Heller Supreme Court decision, a host of Montana's senators and
representatives--along with its Secretary of State-- proposed a resolution
stating "that any 'collective rights' holding in D.C. v. Heller
will violate
Montana's compact with the United States, the contract by which Montana
entered the Union in 1889."

The Montana resolution recalls, "When Montana entered into
statehood and adopted the Compact as a part of the Montana Constitution in
1889, included was a provision guaranteeing the right to bear arms to 'any
person.'"

The resolution continues, "To be clear, the wording of the right to bear
arms reservation in the Montana constitution is exactly the same today as it
was in 1884."

Furthermore, the Montana resolution says, "There is no question that the
contract into which Montana entered for statehood was predicated upon an
understanding that the people of Montana would benefit from an individual
and personal right to bear arms, protected from governmental interference by
both the federal and Montana constitutions. That was the clear intent of the
parties to the contract."

The resolution ended by stating sternly, "A collective rights holding in
Heller would not only open the Pandora's box of unilaterally morphing
contracts, it would also poise Montana to claim appropriate and historically
entrenched remedies for contract violation."

In other words, representatives and senators in the State of Montana
unequivocally put Washington, D.C., on notice that it would not tolerate the
infringement of its citizens' right to keep and bear arms. I don't
think I'm
reading anything into the resolution by assuming that they were implying
that they would secede before they let the federal government trample their
Second Amendment liberties. (Plus, I've just been told that New Hampshire
may also be preparing to propose such a resolution.

That's hilarious, Howie. Thanks for the laugh. Will you be taking the entire state of Montana with you in your quest for an underpopulated, unregulated island in the Caribbean?

[hoosier]

Civilian militias are going to protect us against our government. Right.

As farfetched as it may seem, if the choice is Obama, or the militia? Tex sign me up, I'm coming down!

Yes, now it's time to move this to the FYI.

Somebody is being derilict in their self-appointed duties.