General Discussion

IWelcome TheirHatred

(50 posts)

59. with your definition of what constitutes the "security of a free state"

Fri Jan 4, 2013, 10:26 PM

Jan 2013

then "National Security" includes the health of every citizen of the country and thus a public national healthcare system for all should be put in place.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

72 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

The 2nd Amendment was not put in place to protect against tyrannical gov't. [View all] IWelcome TheirHatred Jan 2013 OP

Hmmmmm, rrneck Jan 2013 #1

no, not the people to have themselves a militia. *the state* to have a militia. unblock Jan 2013 #2

Close...the federal government declared who must serve. jmg257 Jan 2013 #5

Yes, that is the meaning of "state" in this context unblock Jan 2013 #8

I think state meant 1 of the 13 states. They shared the jmg257 Jan 2013 #14

State != government fingusernames Jan 2013 #47

I used to think that, just not so much any more. jmg257 Jan 2013 #49

If you want to be a constittional originalist rrneck Jan 2013 #15

I'm not an originalist unblock Jan 2013 #23

Well rrneck Jan 2013 #25

I see you disagree with the SCOUS JohnRebel Jan 2013 #69

i didn't say anything about that. unblock Jan 2013 #71

Nope. Militia were ALWAYS governmental entities. jmg257 Jan 2013 #3

The right of the people... rrneck Jan 2013 #13

That's the way I see it derby378 Jan 2013 #16

Ain't it the truth. rrneck Jan 2013 #19

You're trying to broaden a term that was well understood & defined as a govt entity. jmg257 Jan 2013 #17

The government can create a militia rrneck Jan 2013 #18

Well see, now you are making different point. And one I have not argued against. jmg257 Jan 2013 #20

It just doesn't seem all that complicated to me. rrneck Jan 2013 #22

To me either. But I find it interesting as hell!... jmg257 Jan 2013 #24

I heard that! nt rrneck Jan 2013 #26

Don't selectively highlight. Loudly Jan 2013 #29

Psst...the states had already ratified the Constitution. nt jmg257 Jan 2013 #30

Right. The Bill of Rights was not an inducement to ratify. Loudly Jan 2013 #32

"Free state" wasn't part of the bill of rights at that point, it didn't exist yet. jmg257 Jan 2013 #35

I don't agree, it means exactly that. Loudly Jan 2013 #37

I see..you are just making an observation. Thought you were referring to jmg257 Jan 2013 #39

Explain how rrneck Jan 2013 #34

Seriously? That is a balance eternally sought by jurisprudence. Loudly Jan 2013 #36

So explain it. rrneck Jan 2013 #38

You don't get to choose which words you want to ignore..... IWelcome TheirHatred Jan 2013 #40

Okay rrneck Jan 2013 #41

Here's my opinion... IWelcome TheirHatred Jan 2013 #43

So rrneck Jan 2013 #44

It doesn't IWelcome TheirHatred Jan 2013 #45

The national guard was federalized in 1903. rrneck Jan 2013 #48

And your collection of pea shooters is gonna stop the 82nd Airborne? IWelcome TheirHatred Jan 2013 #60

So predictable. rrneck Jan 2013 #62

Good luck to you in your battle.... IWelcome TheirHatred Jan 2013 #63

I don't anticipate a battle nor would I welcome one should it occur. rrneck Jan 2013 #65

Yup JohnRebel Jan 2013 #70

You are making a claim about what the original purpose of the second amendment was. Vattel Jan 2013 #4

Yes it was. The entire Bill of Rights protects citizens from our government. banned from Kos Jan 2013 #6

The preamble clears that up.. X_Digger Jan 2013 #10

That is not clear at all. Would you elaborate? banned from Kos Jan 2013 #21

The Bill of Rights is a 'the government shall not' document.. X_Digger Jan 2013 #28

Well then we agree in full. banned from Kos Jan 2013 #31

*nod* Card-carrying member here too. n/t X_Digger Jan 2013 #33

The method for overthrowing the gov't is called ELECTIONS. IWelcome TheirHatred Jan 2013 #42

Are you saying that the founders regjoe Jan 2013 #50

Careful - the founders did not give the people anything. jmg257 Jan 2013 #51

Oh, I understand regjoe Jan 2013 #52

Good luck with that! :) nt jmg257 Jan 2013 #54

The right to bear arms was predicated IWelcome TheirHatred Jan 2013 #53

Oh, I have regjoe Jan 2013 #72

The Militias already existed. The Congress already had the duty jmg257 Jan 2013 #7

does it really matter? bossy22 Jan 2013 #9

Great point. The whole notion of Militias of the several States was obsoleted by the jmg257 Jan 2013 #11

Does it really matter what the "original intent" was? Shouldn't we focus on ... GodlessBiker Jan 2013 #12

Yup it's the preamble which deals with that. TheMadMonk Jan 2013 #27

Interesting, but can we address how the Lanza and 27 dead kiddies and educators situation libdem4life Jan 2013 #46

Agree IWelcome TheirHatred Jan 2013 #56

Standard boilerplate gun nut bargle. Warren DeMontague Jan 2013 #55

Militia's were for external threats - elections for internal threats. nt Old and In the Way Jan 2013 #57

"The state" includes towns, neighborhoods, households, families, and individuals slackmaster Jan 2013 #58

with your definition of what constitutes the "security of a free state" IWelcome TheirHatred Jan 2013 #59

Yes, the system we have now is far from adequate slackmaster Jan 2013 #61

Actually yes it was logicnreason Jan 2013 #64

And how was it intended the 2nd accomplish that? jmg257 Jan 2013 #66

I don't understand why people think that their guns would protect them from a tyrannical government. catpuke9000 Jan 2013 #67

I see you have not done your homework JohnRebel Jan 2013 #68