BASIS FOR SECOND AMENDMENT SUPPORT

LadyJazzer wrote: Semi-automatic muskets that would hold 100 balls at a time weren't thought of either....

If I want a definition of what "well-regulated militia" means, I won't get it from the NRA, the RMGO, or any other gun group.

Or from history I see.

My last homework for the shysters on this thread..............the militia issue is a diversion and a liberal BS issue being used to justify disarming the American people......the courts will decide (Supremes have already in the Chicago case).....ALL will go to court. The outfall will be IMHO a Congress controled by the Republicans and an isolated President............

Quotes from the Founding Fathers - 2nd Amendment - with citations

The whole of that Bill [of Rights] is a declaration of the right of the people at large or considered as individuals...t establishes some rights of the individual as unalienable and which consequently, no majority has a right to deprive them of.
---Albert Gallatinto Alexander Addison, Oct 7, 1789, MS. in N.Y. Hist. Soc.-A.G. Papers, 2.

Americans have the right and advantage of being armed - unlike the citizens of other countries whose governments are afraid to trust the people with arms. -- James Madison, The Federalist Papers

Roger Sherman, during House consideration of a militia bill (1790): [C]onceived it to be the privilege of every citizen, and one of his most essential rights, to bear arms, and to resist every attack upon his liberty or property, by whomsoever made. The particular states, like private citizens, have a right to be armed, and to defend, by force of arms, their rights, when invaded.
14 Debates in the House of Representatives, ed. Linda Grand De Pauw. (Balt., Johns Hopkins Univ. Press, 1972), 92-3.

"The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed." -- Alexander Hamilton, The Federalist Papers at 184-188

The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, and this without any qualification as to their condition or degree, as is the case in the British government. In his popular edition of Blackstone's Commentaries on the Laws of England (1803), St. George Tucker, was a lawyer, Revolutionary War militia officer, legal scholar, and later a U.S. District Court judge (appointed by James Madison in 1813)

"In the Second Amendment, it is declared....that "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." The prohibition is general. No clause in the Constitution could, by any rule of construction, be conceived to give the Congress a power to disarm the people. A flagitious [flagrantly wicked] attempt could only be made under some general pretense by a State Legislature. But if, in any blind pursuit of inordinate power, either the [the State or Federal Government] should attempt it, this Amendment may be appealed to as a restraint on both." -- William Rawle 1825 View of the Constitution

I lied:

We established however some, although not all its [self-government] important principles . The constitutions of most of our States assert, that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves, in all cases to which they think themselves competent, (as in electing their functionaries executive and legislative, and deciding by a jury of themselves, in all judiciary cases in which any fact is involved,) or they may act by representatives, freely and equally chosen; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed; ---Thomas Jefferson to John Cartwright, 1824. Memorial Edition 16:45, Lipscomb and Bergh, editors.
False is the idea of utility that sacrifices a thousand real advantages for one imaginary or trifling inconvenience; that would take fire from men because it burns, and water because one may drown in it; that has no remedy for evils except destruction. The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes. Cesare Beccaria, as quoted by Thomas Jefferson's Commonplace book

Are we at last brought to such a humiliating and debasing degradation, that we cannot be trusted with arms for our own defence? Where is the difference between having our arms in our own possession and under our own direction, and having them under the management of Congress? If our defence be the *real* object of having those arms, in whose hands can they be trusted with more propriety, or equal safety to us, as in our own hands? -- Patrick Henry, speech of June 9 1788

"To disarm the people... was the best and most effectual way to enslave them." -- George Mason, speech of June 14, 1788

"The great object is, that every man be armed. [...] Every one who is able may have a gun." -- Patrick Henry, speech of June 14 1788

That the said Constitution shall never be construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of the United states who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms... -- Samuel Adams, in "Phila. Independent Gazetteer", August 20, 1789

"Among the natural rights of the Colonists are these: First, a right to life; Secondly, to liberty; Thirdly, to property; together with the right to support and defend them in the best manner they can. These are evident branches of, rather than deductions from, the duty of self-preservation, commonly called the first law of nature." Samuel Adams, The Rights of the Colonists, The Report of the Committee of Correspondence to the Boston Town Meeting, Nov. 20, 1772.

The danger (where there is any) from armed citizens, is only to the *government*, not to *society*; and as long as they have nothing to revenge in the government (which they cannot have while it is in their own hands) there are many advantages in their being accustomed to the use of arms, and no possible disadvantage. -- Joel Barlow, "Advice to the Privileged Orders", 1792-93

[The disarming of citizens] has a double effect, it palsies the hand and brutalizes the mind: a habitual disuse of physical forces totally destroys the moral [force]; and men lose at once the power of protecting themselves, and of discerning the cause of their oppression. -- Joel Barlow, "Advice to the Privileged Orders", 1792-93

"Those who hammer their guns into plowshares will plow for those who do not." --Thomas Jefferson

I suppose this is adequate at this time.

A cut and paste job from a gun rights blog, I suppose, that for you that is "research". How many of those quotes did you check veracity, and how many were taken out of context. Based on your OP, why should anyone accept your posts as truthful and factual?

And I'll say this AGAIN:

The Second Amendment is no more "absolute" than the First Amendment is.

ALL of these new gun-control laws ARE basically Constitutional, IMHO. NONE of them restricts your rights to own a gun...PERIOD. "Disarmed"?... "Comin' after yer guns!"?...

Too bad in the scramble to try to justify everything from 100-round drums to flame-throwers and bazookas, the NRA-types seem to overlook the first three words of the Amendment: A well regulated Militia... There's nothing "well-regulated" about letting every knuckle-dragging cretin have an AR-15 with a 30-round magazine, with no background checks...

And for everyone who thinks having that "superior firepower" is somehow going to be used to "take on the [so-called] 'tyranny' of da gub'mnt"..... All I can say is one drone-strike on a bunch of anti-gub'mnt militia-types running around in the woods is a laughable thought.

And, as Dog says, your first two "quotes" from Jefferson and Washington were LIES... I'm not going to do your veracity-checking for you. But I will assume that if the rest of your quotations from the gun-rights blogs are as good as those, then they are worthless....

But y'all have fun with your empty outrage...

Well Doddie....at least your posts are dwindling..........NO counters....as usual local yokle BS.....where are your citations.....no www links please. Thanks so much. Hey the sun is out.....go enjoy.

deltamrey wrote: ...where are your citations.....

When your so-called "citations" point to gun-blog versions of quotes that never existed, then your so-called "citations" are crap.

Kind of like quotes from "Hitler" in 1935--that he never said..... Funny thing about gun-nut blogs...They make up their crap as they go along....

LadyJazzer wrote:

deltamrey wrote: ...where are your citations.....

When your so-called "citations" point to gun-blog versions of quotes that never existed, then your so-called "citations" are crap.

And yours are non-existent. One point for DeltaMrey.

So it is better to make up false quotes and/or take quotes out of context that have no relevance to the alleged issue than to not provide such false quotes?

FYI
Here is a link so that you can read the Bill Of Rights and argue appropriately

Bill of rights