In response to:

When I Want a Progressive’s Opinion on What Guns I Should Have/Hunt with, I’ll Give it to Them

Earl29 Wrote: Jan 20, 2013 11:29 AM
No. There are plenty of comments on the Second Amendment by the founders, including Thomas Jefferson and George Mason. The militia is the whole people. The right to keep and bear arms is a natural right codified in the Second Amendment. The amendment confers no right, it acknowledges and confirms it. A "well regulated" , which means "competent", militia is dependent on the competence of the people who are formed into it, a competence derived from the people having arms. You are right that the intent of the Second Amendment is to protect us from tyranny.
Fred1666 Wrote: Jan 20, 2013 1:52 PM
including the tyrannical King George's England. That was what a well regulated militia was. They difference here is that we were establishing a constitutional government of by and for the people. Therefore any well regulated militia was of the people whether organized locally or through our representatives at state or federal level.
The second phrase was an assurance to the people that the government could not ever disarm the people and therefore reinforced that it is the people's nation and not the government's
Fred1666 Wrote: Jan 20, 2013 1:35 PM
Of course not. However, I think the second amendment was acknowledging two separate issues. Let me restate my earlier statement in a way that more clearly expresses my thoughts. I stated:'The second amendment acknowledged the right of the people to bear arms in part to protect us from the misuse of the militia.' Perhaps it would have been more clear if I said: The second amendment acknowledged the right of the people to bear arms in part to assure the people that they would not be denied the ability to protect themselves against the misuse of the militia.
Anyway, I think the first phrase was simply acknowledging that our nation needs to be able to defend itself. Every organized army of any nation is made up of its own people (cont.)
Fred1666 Wrote: Jan 20, 2013 12:35 PM
I will try to paraphrase the second amendment:
We acknowledge that in order to keep this new nation free, we need a well regulated militia so we will not be overthrown by enemies, both foreign and domestic. To ensure the people that it is not our intention to use this militia to control the people like King George did, we hereby acknowledge that the inherent right of the people to keep and bear arms will not be infringed.
8411c Wrote: Jan 20, 2013 12:08 PM
God granted us the right to defend ourselves. The Second Amendment put that into words. That's all it did.

We have the right to defend ourselves, whether we are labeled a "militia", whether we are "well-regulated" or not. Neither you, nor Obambi, nor the Congress can take that right away. No matter how you try to weasel around it or want everyone to play the victim.
Earl29 Wrote: Jan 20, 2013 12:08 PM
When competent people come together, those other things naturally follow. The right to keep and bear arms is the right of the people prior to formal militia activities. To suggest that the right is only active after the militia is formed into a unit is ahistorical and would defeat the intent of the Amendment. The "well regulated militia" part merely gives a reason and defines the type of weapons protected; the weapons carried by soldiers at the time of unit formation.
Surely you are not suggesting that there could be no National Guard absent the Second Amendment?
Fred1666 Wrote: Jan 20, 2013 11:46 AM
I do not believe "well regulated" simply means "competent" while I do believe the militia should be competent and while the term militia may refer to all the people, a "well regulated militia" does not. "Well regulated" means things like organized, trained, having a defined purpose, uniformed, etc.
As I stated in my first post here, the second amendment is an acknowledged right not a granted right.
My buddy, Green Beret badass Bryan Sikes, shot a massive whitetail buck last week during our South Texas Purple Heart Adventure. He whacked said muy grande with a LaRue Tactical OBR chambered for the glorious .308 Win. round. Oh and BTW, Sikes used a high capacity magazine during this hunt.

For those of you who aren’t hip to the LaRue, it is a weapon that progressive darlings say we should not have because we don’t “need” such a weapon for hunting.

Hunting, according to these wizards of odd, is what they think our founding fathers had in mind when...

Related Tags: Guns Hunting Hunting Rights