States need to start their own volunteer militia's!!

[red states rule]

Back to the topic of this thread

Quotes on the Second Amendment

The Founding Fathers on the Second Amendment

"I ask, Sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them."
George Mason
Co-author of the Second Amendment
during Virginia's Convention to Ratify the Constitution, 1788

---

"A militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves …"
Richard Henry Lee
writing in Letters from the Federal Farmer to the Republic, Letter XVIII, May, 1788.

---

"The people are not to be disarmed of their weapons. They are left in full posession of them."
Zachariah Johnson
Elliot's Debates, vol. 3 "The Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution."

---

"… the people are confirmed by the next article in their right to keep and bear their private arms"
Philadelphia Federal Gazette
June 18, 1789, Pg. 2, Col. 2
Article on the Bill of Rights

---

"And that the said Constitution be never 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
quoted in the Philadelphia Independent Gazetteer, August 20, 1789, "Propositions submitted to the Convention of this State"

http://cap-n-ball.com/fathers.htm

[taft2012]

I misstyped, of course I meant the Southern States.

And it certainly was an Executive Order, issued BY Lincoln ordering all military personal to free slaves as they came across them rather than return them to their masters.

The Emancipation Proclamation freed slaves in those areas in rebellion against the union, which excluded slave states that remained in the union; Delaware, Kentucky, Maryland, and Missouri.

A liberal reading of it would mean that anywhere the union army was, was *NOT* in rebellion against the union. A loophole that allowed General U.S. Grant to own slaves throughout the course of the war, and who he did not liberate until enaction of the 13th Amendment.

[red states rule]

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

The Emancipation Proclamation freed slaves in those areas in rebellion against the union, which excluded slave states that remained in the union; Delaware, Kentucky, Maryland, and Missouri.

A liberal reading of it would mean that anywhere the union army was, was *NOT* in rebellion against the union. A loophole that allowed General U.S. Grant to own slaves throughout the course of the war, and who he did not liberate until enaction of the 13th Amendment.

Liberals always have at least double standard and sometimes even triple standards! Regardless of how many standards they employ they are always exempted and treated like the special little Gods they think themselves to be! -Tyr

[ConHog]

Liberals always have at least double standard and sometimes even triple standards! Regardless of how many standards they employ they are always exempted and treated like the special little Gods they think themselves to be! -Tyr

Now Lincoln was a liberal?

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Now Lincoln was a liberal?

Please show where I used Lincoln's name. You don't get to just add names to my statement when I didn't use them. If I want to name specific people I will do so myself, your attempt to name them for me is ridiculous and asinine.
A bit daft if you ask me and even if you didn't ask me..--Tyr
Your reading comprehension needs help.......

A liberal reading of it would mean that anywhere the union army was, was *NOT* in rebellion against the union.-quote by taft

[ConHog]

Please show where I used Lincoln's name. You don't get to just add names to my statement when I didn't use them. If I want to name specific people I will do so myself, your attempt to name them for me is ridiculous and asinine.
A bit daft if you ask me and even if you didn't ask me..--Tyr

Lincoln WROTE the Emancipation Proclamation. YOU proclaimed it was an example of a double standard that libs use. Therefor YOU called Lincoln a lib.

LOL

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Now Lincoln was a liberal?

Again just because you are so slow and reading seems to be so very hard for you!! jezz dense much?

Quote by taft,
A liberal reading of it would mean that anywhere the union army was, was *NOT* in rebellion against the union.

[logroller]

The Emancipation Proclamation freed slaves in those areas in rebellion against the union, which excluded slave states that remained in the union; Delaware, Kentucky, Maryland, and Missouri.

A liberal reading of it would mean that anywhere the union army was, was *NOT* in rebellion against the union. A loophole that allowed General U.S. Grant to own slaves throughout the course of the war, and who he did not liberate until enaction of the 13th Amendment.

No it didn't. Just because it didn't include them doesn't mean they were excluded. You Just noted that "areas" in rebellion were included. That could include parts of Delaware, Kentucky, Maryland and Missouri. The emancipation proclamation was a military move IMO; a means of motivating the negro population (slave and free) to join the fight. Tell them, if your master is a rebel, you're free; if your master is prounion, we'll figure that out later.

[mundame]

The emancipation proclamation was a military move IMO; a means of motivating the negro population (slave and free) to join the fight. Tell them, if your master is a rebel, you're free; if your master is prounion, we'll figure that out later.

Sure. I think that's been well documented as having been Lincoln's intention. It did not work, of course: the blacks did not fight the white Southerners. However, they did follow the Northern troops around and sow confusion throughout the South, so it worked well enough from that perpspective.

[gabosaurus]

If states legalized volunteer militias, wouldn't street gangs qualify? I am guessing they would.

[mundame]

If states legalized volunteer militias, wouldn't street gangs qualify? I am guessing they would.

[:-) They are certainly well armed......

If militias were completely voluntary associations, as opposed to state-sanctioned organizations, I don't see why they wouldn't qualify.

[Kathianne]

No it didn't. Just because it didn't include them doesn't mean they were excluded. You Just noted that "areas" in rebellion were included. That could include parts of Delaware, Kentucky, Maryland and Missouri. The emancipation proclamation was a military move IMO; a means of motivating the negro population (slave and free) to join the fight. Tell them, if your master is a rebel, you're free; if your master is prounion, we'll figure that out later.

I always saw it as a political move to change the meaning of the war from 'holding the Union' to 'free the slaves.' It did work on that level, nearly all high school grads believe it was the war to free the slaves.

[CSM]

If states legalized volunteer militias, wouldn't street gangs qualify? I am guessing they would.

Just a guess on my part but I highly doubt that any state would would legalize any armed organization that habitually engages in illegal activities. Street gangs do not normally provide public service of any sort and within the legal bounds of society. Then again, maybe you are more familiar with street gangs that do.

[Thunderknuckles]

I totally disagree. The Constitution was written at a much different time than the present. We are no longer threatened by Indian attacks, foreign invaders or internal subversives protecting the rights of The Crown.

The U.S. populace no longer needs an "armed militia." We already have several -- street gangs, organized crime, white supremacists and terror organizations of all kinds. We don't need armed citizens groups taking to the streets simply because they disagree with election results.

Gabby, this seems to be a common theme with liberals opposing the 2nd Amendment and other issues with the Constitution. They tend to think only in terms of NOW. The founding fathers created the Constitution with a consideration of what had transpired before them and what may come in the future. Just because we have no credible threats to our sovereignty now, does not mean that we won't face them in the future. Rome, at its height in the second century AD, was an unchallenged super power. Yet, shortly after that it experienced a slow decline and three centuries later the barbarians came knocking. The moral here is, you have to take the long view with respect to the Constitution. Any broad understanding of human history would reveal that we don't hold a unique place in time.