Even militia had its exceptions apparently not applying to ALL CITIZENS

in the words of George Washington (who actually served and was PRESIDENT of the constitutional convention)

“It may be laid down, as a primary position, and the basis of our system, that every citizen who enjoys the protection of a free government, owes not only a proportion of his property, but even of his personal services to the defence of it, and consequently that the Citizens of America (with a few legal and official exceptions) from 18 to 50 Years of Age should be borne on the Militia Rolls, provided with uniform Arms, and so far accustomed to the use of them, that the Total strength of the Country might be called forth at Short Notice on any very interesting Emergency.”
-Penned in a letter to Alexander Hamilton, 1783
the militia was never all inclusive for every person under every situation ...
We can still make 'legal' exceptions based on some common sense.

We can still make 'legal' exceptions based on some common sense.

If I am getting free water, I cant demand it be from the purest waterfall, those providing it decide that

If I am getting guns free, those providing them decide which guns

Nope, though we have the RIGHT to possess guns, they are still sold as PRODUCTS that go through regulations and have prices set as well as being subject to requirements.

Even militia had its exceptions apparently not applying to ALL CITIZENS

in the words of George Washington (who actually served and was PRESIDENT of the constitutional convention)

“It may be laid down, as a primary position, and the basis of our system, that every citizen who enjoys the protection of a free government, owes not only a proportion of his property, but even of his personal services to the defence of it, and consequently that the Citizens of America (with a few legal and official exceptions) from 18 to 50 Years of Age should be borne on the Militia Rolls, provided with uniform Arms, and so far accustomed to the use of them, that the Total strength of the Country might be called forth at Short Notice on any very interesting Emergency.”

-Penned in a letter to Alexander Hamilton, 1783

the militia was never all inclusive for every person under every situation ...

We can still make 'legal' exceptions based on some common sense.

You should get yerself a field and invest in a good quality flame thrower too.

See, it doesn't matter what he wrote to someone else. It isn't worded in the amendment. Its validity is merely one citizen talking with another and we are doing that right here.


Thing is, who determines that common sense, the government or the citizens?

that would be kind of silly no? you wouldn’t say that if you lived in Flint Michigan.


where do you get guns for free? Unless you join the police force or military.




Just because we have the right to possess arms that doesn’t mean it’s free, you don’t understand the difference between individual right and a government sponsored privilege.

Individual rights are essential for freedom, but freedom has a price, nothing is free, if that was the case the government would supply us with guns and weapons and we wouldn’t need an army would we?



I really don’t think you understand what you’re saying Ms.Harmony.

First thing the language the founding father used isn’t the language we use today, A militia, a well-regulated militia, the right to bear arms (fire arms) , the second amendment is pretty clear actually, it’s the interpretation of some that is in question and SCOTUS finally clarified, even Obama had to accept it.

It’s like when the jokers ask, does the right to bear arms means I can have a nuclear warhead to protect myself? Duh

A nuclear warhead isn’t designed to protect, its designed for total annihilation

assault rifle, which Im surprised the media uses, especially when it was Hitler who coined the term "assault rifle"

1. The vast majority of shooters have been found to have psychiatric problems though the news media never emphasis's this fact. All states have laws prohibiting these types of people from buying and owning weapons. How are they obtaining them? Why aren't the laws that are on the books being enforced?

2. Medical, law agencies and the military know of mentally ill people yet this information is not given over to agencies who do back ground checks.

3. BTW, the term ASSAULT RIFLE is a term that originated with the news media. Semi automatic weapons have never been marketed as assault weapons.

4. Earlier this afternoon I spent time viewing the history of mass shootings. They seem to have began in 1999 with Columbine High School. AR-15's have been around for a long time. What changed in our society that caused people to revert to this?

5. Most everyday shootings (more numerous that mass shootings) are caused by drug and gang wars. The vast majority of these weapons are purchased illegally. What will banning firearms do to slow down illegal weapons purchases?

6. Illinois has some of the strictest gun laws in the country. Yet, their strict gun laws have not slowed gun violence.

7. Illegal drug use is against the law. How has stricter drug laws reduced illegal drug use?

Our country needs to spend more time and money in finding these kinds of people and helping them. Ever increasingly stricter gun (and drug) laws are treating a symptom and not approaching the problem.

1. The vast majority of shooters have been found to have psychiatric problems though the news media never emphasis's this fact. All states have laws prohibiting these types of people from buying and owning weapons. How are they obtaining them? Why aren't the laws that are on the books being enforced?

2. Medical, law agencies and the military know of mentally ill people yet this information is not given over to agencies who do back ground checks.

3. BTW, the term ASSAULT RIFLE is a term that originated with the news media. Semi automatic weapons have never been marketed as assault weapons.

4. Earlier this afternoon I spent time viewing the history of mass shootings. They seem to have began in 1999 with Columbine High School. AR-15's have been around for a long time. What changed in our society that caused people to revert to this?

5. Most everyday shootings (more numerous that mass shootings) are caused by drug and gang wars. The vast majority of these weapons are purchased illegally. What will banning firearms do to slow down illegal weapons purchases?

6. Illinois has some of the strictest gun laws in the country. Yet, their strict gun laws have not slowed gun violence.

7. Illegal drug use is against the law. How has stricter drug laws reduced illegal drug use?

Our country needs to spend more time and money in finding these kinds of people and helping them. Ever increasingly stricter gun (and drug) laws are treating a symptom and not approaching the problem.

I think I understand in any language that there is a difference between just saying 'a militia of every citizen' and a 'well regulated militia' in any time, then and now.

There are several such adjectives that distinguish an ABSOLUTE from a general statement. words like WELL REGULATED and ABLE BODIED and specific ages, indicate its not an ABSOLUTE and free for all meant to automatically include all citizens in all circumstances.

I repeat, there was not an all inclusive proposition

(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are—
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.


adjectives like 'able bodied' and 'male' and age restrictions, affirm that it was never meant as an ABSOLUTE place for any and all citizens

were disabled not citizens and not therefore have rights? or people over the age of 54?

I dont agree it defined citizenship, becuase many with citizenship were not eligible, meaning not having the right is not equivalent of being stripped of citizenship.


the logic of women not serving was the culture of women needing to raise the children

the logic of the very young or the very old was most likely a realization of how much less emotionally or physically apt they were to be able to not slow the others down

there is no logic to not allowing homeowners bear guns


similar to restricting children and the elderly, there is logic to not having those who are not 'able bodied' due to psychological illness retain weapons.

I repeat, there was not an all inclusive proposition

http://www.archives.gov/founding-docs/bill-of-rights-transcript#toc-the-u-s-bill-of-rights

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Amendment II

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Amendment III

No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.

Amendment IV

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Amendment V

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Amendment VI

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.

Amendment VII

In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.

Amendment VIII

Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

Amendment IX

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Amendment X

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.