Does lax gun-control endanger "the security of a free state"?

The argument behind the 2nd is every bit as valid today as it was in 1791:
The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed because, from time to time, people need to kill other people.

Aside from that - if you don't like it, repeal it.
Don't squawk about it -- get off your ass and do the work.
Let us know how it goes.

 

If the world has a nuclear war and our military is severely weakened, wouldn't an armed population be a great deterrent to invasion?

Or what if our government decided to take your freedom of speech, suspend elections, or tax your income at 100% and establish communism? Would an armed population be a deterrent to tyranny? Our military have civilian families.

Besides, I have a right to defend my right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, even against home invaders and rapists.

 

I frequently hear from liberals that the Constitution is outdated....It's usually when it impedes them from violating rights to achieve their goals. The Constitution has always had provision for amendment, but there are always attempts to politicize it, particularly in recent years and circumvent any amendment process by urging legislating from the judicial bench and then screaming bloody murder (pun intended) when the courts follow originalist interpretations. Yet, groups like the ACLU continually cite the Constitution when they feel their rights are violated (not a bad thing in my mind). They don't realize the Constitution protects them as well.
If gun owners were such a bad lot as they are made to be by the gun control advocates, there would be no gun control advocates. Most gun rights advocates, while often irritated by the inanity of the the gun control arguements, yet recognize and would fight for the rights of gun control advocates to voice their opinions and many have died defending those rights.

 

Perhaps ideas such as you espouse are outdated, there is enough evidence and proof that the Second Amendment is still valid.

 

Obama raised the fear of government to a new high, now the number one fear among Americans,

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news...y-top-10-things-americans-fear-most/91934874/

and as a consequence, resulted in the largest rate of expansion of gun ownership and increase in guns in civilian hands in any comparable period of history by people exercising their 2A rights I note the left, in fear of Trump, is now availing themselves of the same right,

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-...-stockpiling-food-guns-and-emergency-supplies

I made good money investing in Gun manufacturer stock during Obama's reign. Somehow I doubt the profits will continue, but there is always hope. And hope, that the left will come to appreciate the rights they have been trying to infringe.

Given the rising threats to Americans and others in the world, at some point I would hope there would be a trend toward reducing the devisiveness that has been propogated in recent history and an increasing sentiment we are not divided by race, religion, ideology, etc., but are all identified as Americans enjoined under a Constituion, in the boat together, surviving or sinking together.

 

What does the word "infringed" mean now that it didn't mean in 1789?

Please don't pretend to be pro-2nd, when you are a sworn enemy of it.

 

Your opinion is noted. However it must also be noted that your opinion is completely devoid of anything that resembles actual fact.

You claim the second amendment was originally set in place, because the united states did not have a military. The militia of the time was regulated by the federal government by an entirely different section of the constitution not found within the bill of rights. The militia act, which is not within the constitution but rather is a separate law, specified that those who made up the militia were required to bring their own arms and supplies, which made the militia and its effectiveness contingent upon private firearms ownership not being hampered or otherwise impaired, rather than the other way around.

Even when the united states developed a standing army, in violation of the constitution, congress did not see fit to use the amendment process to either remove the second amendment, or the militia clause from the united states constitution, suggesting that they did not share your views about it being outdated. Even today, there has been no serious efforts at amending the constitution to remove either the second amendment, or the militia clause.

You also claim the united states has the strongest military in the world. This is just as lacking in factual accuracy as the first part of your presented opinion. The united states has been waging war in numerous countries in the middle east for nearly sixteen years now, and they have proven incapable of completely eliminating an enemy that makes use of rocks, improvised explosive devices, and various firearms that were in service in the second world war. Despite their technological superiority, the united states military is being bested by an enemy that is technologically primitive. Pray tell why exactly is this occurring if the united states military is so superior?

 

Kind of presumptuous to think that you would stop them.

 

I don't speak for any of the groups you mentioned. I voice my opinion. Do I have the right to voice my opinion? BTW, this same constitution didn't allow women the right to vote. It is not infallible.

 

Well, dagnabit, I think you should grab your gun, and hightail it to the Middle East. Show those suckers how it's done.

 

Thanks Obama.

That one, I mean sincerely.

 

I've got that t-shirt.

Haven't drank Tang in years because of it.

 

No, the 1A is outdated.

 

Any one has the right to express their opinion.
The Constitution contained the provisions for the amendments that corrected the enequities of the past that existed, such a women's suffrage, slavery, and even more recently, same sex marriage. It is a better document framing government that has thus far been developed other than my eventual monarchy and the decrees I will issue.

 

"Them" would be home invaders, who are shot regularly enough.

 

BTDT, get the brown t-shirt.

 

"If They Bring a Knife to the Fight, We Bring a Gun" - Obama 2008 (speaking about Republicans to his supporters)

Words like that spoken by a candidate for the office of President of ALL the citizens of the Nation, regardless of Party, Race, Religion, etc. if not threatening, has to be the most divisive words I've ever heard from the mouth of a Presidential candidate, and tends to exemplify why our founders felt a need for the 2nd amendment, not to mention how it fits with our 'Declaration of Independence' which would have never been possible if the people had been unarmed.

Note: It is my belief that Obama will continue his pre-political activities as a Community instigator which I feel may result in bringing about violence and destruction as the means by which his and the Lefts agenda is promoted and justified in fundamentally changing our form of government.

 

Just as it is presumptuous to think that an armed homeowner would not be able to stop an intruder who may be out to harm their family for whatever reason.

The lack of an actual response to the above question has been noted.

 

Which is why it can be amended.
When do you start your campaign to repeal the 2nd?

 

I have succesfully defended myself many times, with a Gun, more than one Gun, does that make Me presumptuous ?
Because I did not lay down and die ?
Would it have been better for Me to be a
Gun-less Panty waist ?????

 

Article V.
The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.

-------------------------
It is my opinion that division among the governed would be much less today if our Federal courts, especially the Supreme Court were to administer our Constitution based on a more literal interpretation of the meaning of the words at the time they were written, allowing changes to occur as a result of demands by the governed as laid out in Article V.
-------------------------

Amendment XIX - Ratified 18 August 1920
The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.

-------------------------
No one ever claimed the U.S. Constitution was a perfect document, which should be evidenced by the existence of Article V.

-------------------------
Would not all agree that the paramount right of each and every individual is the right to life? No government is capable of guaranteeing the safety of each and every individual from any and all threats on their lives which mandates the right of each individual to protect themselves inalienable. No laws should ever be made making it illegal to defend ones self, unless they are doing so while committing a crime, or have initiated a threat to the life of another.

 

Yes, the herd will appreciate your sacrifice for 15 seconds...

 

Remember the 18th amendment?

 

From memory - "We hold these truths to be evident that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights - that among these rights are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."

Ask yourself. Why did Right-Wing Judicial Watch sue President Obama roughly 300 times? That's about a lawsuit every 8 days. A total mockery of the Declaration and our Constitution.

 

You've come pretty close to quoting the words contained in The Declaration Of Independence, but...

What has that, and/or Judicial Watch, to do with the OP topic?