Join the Meeting Place for Moms!
Talk to other moms, share advice, and have fun!

(minimum 6 characters)

2nd Amendment NOT debatable

Posted by on Jan. 21, 2014 at 10:57 PM
  • 510 Replies
8 moms liked this

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.

People often debate the meaning of the 2nd Amendment no matter how plain and clear its wording. Furthermore, the meaning and the intention of the 2nd Amendment is supported by numerous writings of the architects of it:

"No freeman shall be debarred the use of arms..." - Thomas Jefferson

"I ask sir, who is the militia? It is the whole people...To disarm the people, that is the best and most effective way to enslave them..." - George Mason

"Americans [have] the right and advantage of being armed -- unlike citizens of other countries whose governments are afraid to trust people with arms." - James Madison

"...Arms like laws discourage and keep the invader and the plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property. The balance of power is the scale of peace." -Thomas Paine

"Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword because the whole body of people are armed and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States..." - Noah Webster

"Arms in the hands of individual citizens may be used at individual discretion...in private self defense." - John Adams

"The great principle is that every man be armed....everyone who is able may have a gun." - Patrick Henry

"Those who reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it." - Thomas Paine

"...What country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not warned from time to time, that this people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify is a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure...." - Thomas Jefferson: Letter to Colonel Smith, Nov. 13, 1787.

by on Jan. 21, 2014 at 10:57 PM
Add your quick reply below:
You must be a member to reply to this post.
Replies (1-10):
lga1965
by Ruby Member on Jan. 21, 2014 at 11:03 PM
4 moms liked this
Yawn...
Posted on CafeMom Mobile
snookyfritz
by Gold Member on Jan. 21, 2014 at 11:06 PM
1 mom liked this

For whom?

canadianmom1974
by Gold Member on Jan. 21, 2014 at 11:22 PM
9 moms liked this
So do you consider a young child killed in am 'accidental' shooting to be a patriot or a tyrant? I think Jefferson and I would disagree on what constitutes a 'few lives lost'.
Posted on CafeMom Mobile
buttersworth
by Silver Member on Jan. 21, 2014 at 11:24 PM

 As far as us citizens having the right to actually debate an amendment, yes, we can do that. Is that what you mean? I was speaking about how people often debate the actual meaning of the words of the 2nd Amendment...saying it pertains to a state militia (and in one instance likening that to a national guard, ie) or to sporting. While personally I support the amendment being held intact, in this specific instance I'm only talking about the rhetorical, literal meaning of it as pertaining to every individual citizen.

Quoting snookyfritz:

For whom?

 

snookyfritz
by Gold Member on Jan. 21, 2014 at 11:29 PM
6 moms liked this

Quoting Jefferson or any other founding father is ridiculous in this argument.  Jefferson is flipping in his grave over many things that are happening in this country.  The idea that the Constitution is sacred and unchangeable being the foremost among them.

The founders couldn't possibly envision what has become of our country and for that they set up the Constitution as an ever evolving document.  It was made to change.

Quoting buttersworth:

 As far as us citizens having the right to actually debate an amendment, yes, we can do that. Is that what you mean? I was speaking about how people often debate the actual meaning of the words of the 2nd Amendment...saying it pertains to a state militia (and in one instance likening that to a national guard, ie) or to sporting. While personally I support the amendment being held intact, in this specific instance I'm only talking about the rhetorical, literal meaning of it as pertaining to every individual citizen.

Quoting snookyfritz:

For whom?



MeAndTommyLee
by Gold Member on Jan. 21, 2014 at 11:32 PM

In plain English, too...hmm

kailu1835
by Ruby Member on Jan. 21, 2014 at 11:32 PM
2 moms liked this


What is happening in this country is precisely what the founding fathers anticipated, because it is not far removed from exactly what was happening back in England.  They did not set it up as an infinitely changeable document, it is quite finite.  They ensured it.

Quoting snookyfritz:

Quoting Jefferson or any other founding father is ridiculous in this argument.  Jefferson is flipping in his grave over many things that are happening in this country.  The idea that the Constitution is sacred and unchangeable being the foremost among them.

The founders couldn't possibly envision what has become of our country and for that they set up the Constitution as an ever evolving document.  It was made to change.

Quoting buttersworth:

 As far as us citizens having the right to actually debate an amendment, yes, we can do that. Is that what you mean? I was speaking about how people often debate the actual meaning of the words of the 2nd Amendment...saying it pertains to a state militia (and in one instance likening that to a national guard, ie) or to sporting. While personally I support the amendment being held intact, in this specific instance I'm only talking about the rhetorical, literal meaning of it as pertaining to every individual citizen.

Quoting snookyfritz:

For whom?




babiesbabybaby development

Hi!  My name is Jenn!

snookyfritz
by Gold Member on Jan. 21, 2014 at 11:34 PM

You might want to look up a bit more on that subject.  Especially in regard to Jefferson.

Quoting kailu1835:


What is happening in this country is precisely what the founding fathers anticipated, because it is not far removed from exactly what was happening back in England.  They did not set it up as an infinitely changeable document, it is quite finite.  They ensured it.

Quoting snookyfritz:

Quoting Jefferson or any other founding father is ridiculous in this argument.  Jefferson is flipping in his grave over many things that are happening in this country.  The idea that the Constitution is sacred and unchangeable being the foremost among them.

The founders couldn't possibly envision what has become of our country and for that they set up the Constitution as an ever evolving document.  It was made to change.

Quoting buttersworth:

 As far as us citizens having the right to actually debate an amendment, yes, we can do that. Is that what you mean? I was speaking about how people often debate the actual meaning of the words of the 2nd Amendment...saying it pertains to a state militia (and in one instance likening that to a national guard, ie) or to sporting. While personally I support the amendment being held intact, in this specific instance I'm only talking about the rhetorical, literal meaning of it as pertaining to every individual citizen.

Quoting snookyfritz:

For whom?





buttersworth
by Silver Member on Jan. 21, 2014 at 11:38 PM
1 mom liked this

 Do you know how many children have been killed, and are still killed, by tyrannical governments?

How many has this current administration killed over in Afghanistan and Iraq? With its sites still set on Syria and Iran?

Do those drones Obama brags about have the ability to discriminate only adult males?

I guess the integrity of our government is measured by fake empathy to justify taking our rights, rather than by how many children they've killed in other countries.

Quoting canadianmom1974: So do you consider a young child killed in am 'accidental' shooting to be a patriot or a tyrant? I think Jefferson and I would disagree on what constitutes a 'few lives lost'.

 

slb235
by Member on Jan. 21, 2014 at 11:38 PM
6 moms liked this

If you're really concerned about people dying, you should work toward getting people's cars taken away.  Other than that, your straw man is pretty stupid.

Quoting canadianmom1974: So do you consider a young child killed in am 'accidental' shooting to be a patriot or a tyrant? I think Jefferson and I would disagree on what constitutes a 'few lives lost'.
Add your quick reply below:
You must be a member to reply to this post.
Join the Meeting Place for Moms!
Talk to other moms, share advice, and have fun!

(minimum 6 characters)



Featured