The Second Amendment Has Nothing To Do With Hunting

“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.”

The Second Amendment is about security and freedom. It assumes military capable weapons. It has nothing to do with skeet shooting

ScreenHunter_902 Mar. 23 08.34


About stevengoddard

Just having fun
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

34 Responses to The Second Amendment Has Nothing To Do With Hunting

  1. Bob Knows says:

    Yes. The US Constitution is about “arms” not about “guns.” It guarantees our right to own and carry regular military arms. In the language of the 18th century, “well regulated” means to be made equal to the regulars, to carry arms equal to the regular army.

    • Melt says:

      That is completely wrong. Regulated has nothing to do with regular troops. Regulate means to control. Now read: A well controlled Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Notice the word Militia is capitalized just as it is in the constitution where it gives the command of the Militia to the President. Who regulates the Militia? The people do!

      • Bob Knows says:

        Yes, Melt, that’s what “well regulated” has morphed into meaning today. What they meant in the 18th century by “regulated” we would say “regularized” today.

        • gator69 says:

          1. a military force that is raised from the civil population to supplement a regular army in an emergency.

          In this case, a constitutional emergency. ‘Regulate’ in the 18th century meant ‘to make regular’, and had nothing to do with ‘control’.

        • Ben says:

          I’m not so sure. The earliest dictionary definition (1828) is….

          “REG’ULATED, pp. Adjusted by rule, method or forms; put in good order; subjected to rules or restrictions.”


          regularized is not in the earliest dictionary. The closest is


        • gator69 says:

          “Samuel Johnson’s 1785 edition of Dictionary of the English Language defines “to regulate” as:

          1. To adjust by rule or method… 2. To direct.

          When applied to the Commerce Clause, this narrow meaning can be understood as “to make regular.” In his book Restoring the Lost Constitution, Randy Barnett writes:

          The power to regulate is, in essence, the power to say, ‘if you want to do something, here is how you must do it.”

        • Melt says:

          No. The Constitution in Article II Section 2 clearly gives the command of the Militia to the Pres. as Commander in Chief. Ok but in the Amendments to the Constitution the Government is constrained and restricted from abuse to the people. The argument would be that if the Pres. attempted to use the Militia to oppress the people the “Regulators” are the armed population. To say that the 2nd Amendment allows arms only to those “Regularized” to be at the orders of the Pres. is completely out of context to the entire Bill of Rights!

        • Gamecock says:

          “The Constitution in Article II Section 2 clearly gives the command of the Militia to the Pres. as Commander in Chief”

          Meltman, you conveniently left off “when called into the actual Service of the United States.”

      • Gamecock says:

        Meltman, please read Federalist 29 before making more of a fool of yourself.

  2. Send Al to the Pole says:

    about that pic…. one can only dream.

  3. Gail Combs says:

    Yeesh, and I just posted all that stuff on the last thread.

    Hitler and Switzerland…

    Russia and Afganistan…

    China of course is behind Obummer disarming US citizens 100% {:>)
    The New York Times: China Calls for ‘No Delay’ on Gun Controls in U.S.

    HONG KONG — The state news agency in China, the official voice of the government, has called for the United States to quickly adopt stricter gun controls…

    “Japan would never invade the United States. We would find a rifle behind every blade of grass.” Isoroku Yamamoto Fleet Admiral and Commander-in-Chief of the Imperial Japanese Navy, an alumnus of the U.S. Naval War College and Harvard University.

    (The comment was found in the files of Gordon Prange, on General MacArthur’s staff, based on witness statements. but is often labeled “as misquoted”… It was overheard by several attendees at a meeting with the Admiral. During WWI and for some time, thereafter, the comment was also closely guarded by the U.S. Army as wartime intelligence.
    Major, PAYNE U.S. Army (Ret.) )

  4. Gamecock says:

    From 1873 to 1936, U.S. civilian small arms were SUPERIOR to the U.S. military’s.

    Perhaps at other periods, too.

  5. Fred Harwood says:

    And, “arms” included many weapons one might bear, including guns.

  6. Laz M says:

    The meaning of words has been lost over the decades and centuries. This is a “modern” (i.e. crude and redundant) version of how I’ve always read the 2nd amendment:

    Because a well armed private citizenry and Militia are one and the same, and is necessary to the security and existence of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms of all types, by definition and necessarily including military-grade weaponry and devices, missiles, guns, rifles, and all other artillery shall NOT be infringed.

    However, if it were written as above, it would still be mis-interpreted with time. In a few more decades or centuries those who wish to disarm the populace would insist that “the writers never envisioned drones capable of firing missiles with today’s destructive capability” …

    … the era of the gun gave us the Enlightenment and freedom from hoards of horse-bound armies both in Europe, Asia, and the Americas. The era of the gun, of individuals (mostly in the United States) having arms as capable, if not more so, than those of the governments and conquerors is, I fear, well into its waning stages.

    • There Is No Substitute for Victory. says:

      You’re right Laz: The Era of the Gun brought defense to a new height and freed European States from needing armies of privileged and idle nobles on horse back. The gun (especially muskets and rifles) allowed normal citizens to be quickly armed, trained, and molded into an effective fighting force. Grenadiers and musketeers ended the repeated on slot of horse nomads onto the plains of central Europe.

      Not only did the musket balls and grenade fragments kill and wound the horsemen these battle field implements took a grim toll on the horses. Horses and their tack was most rank and file nomads most valuable possessions and the prospect of having your horses shot out from under you had a sobering effect on the brigands. Accuracy was a non-starter because any peon or surf in close quarters combat could jam the muzzle of a musket up against a horses’ abdomen and pull the trigger. Once the horse was down and thrashing around on top of its rider it was a simple task then for the footmen to smash the rider into real steak Tartar.

  7. eqibno says:

    A right is not an obligation until you are obliged to exercise it…The greatest security against acts limiting or restricting the freedom of the people by forces foreign or domestic, is the right of reply…in kind. When the guy with the gun tells you to do as he says, and you reply by the mouth of your cannons, he doesn’t get to say it a second time. 😉

  8. james johnson says:

    We need a movement to promote the idea that the American people are to be as well armed as the government, this would also include instruction for those with out military background. And the arming at government expense. All of us that took a oath to defend this country should remember that oath did not have a expiration date.

    • Gamecock says:

      From Federalist 28 and 29, an argument CAN be made that the government should provide guns for the citizens.

      If that seems far fetched, it is the practice in Switzerland.

      • Absolutely. The government should provide, on request, one standard-issue military firearm to anyone who is a citizen of the United States. Furthermore, every weapon carried or used by a member of the United States military should be available for purchase at a fair market value for every citizen of the United States.

        It would be the cheapest entitlement in history.

        • Gamecock says:

          Unfortunately, in a rare boneheaded move, Reagan signed the Firearm Owners’ Protection Act (FOPA) of 1986, which banned the sale of future manufactured automatic weapons to civilians. You can buy an MP5, ONLY if it was made before 1986!

          Prices for a Thompson SMG, perhaps the perfect home defense gun, start at $20,000. If not for FOPA, you could probably get a new one for under $2,000. So, yes, “Furthermore, every weapon carried or used by a member of the United States military should be available for purchase at a fair market value for every citizen of the United States.” But also, every one made in the past could be manufactured and sold to citizens, too.

          [/dream over]

      • gator69 says:

        At one time, the government did provide citizens with guns, when the citizen in question did not have the ability to acquire one on his own. It was also required that you carry your gun with you if you left home for events as common as church.

  9. Gail Combs says:

    On the subject of “The Second Amendment is about security and freedom.”
    I wrote a comment a few years ago about Our Bankster/corporate friends who like to make money off of war and what they are up to now especially in light of Fast and Furious

    I came across this THE STRATEGY TO GET THE U.S. INTO WAR [I & II] “…The trick eventually evolved into something far more dramatic than peace negotiations. It called for three strategies in one. They were: aggravate, insulate, and facilitate…..”

    The formula, as shown is:
    The first stage is to aggravate: Literally to goad them until they had no choice but to strike back (sound familiar?)

    The second prong of the strategy is to insulate: Keep the victims (that’s us) from getting the information needed to protect themselves.

    The third and final stage is to Facilitate the attack: Make it easy by offering no opposition.


    So I went looking to see if there was evidence of this strategy in the current situation and found these news articles…..

    Since the rest of the comment contains a lot of links I am not going to reproduce it here, however it certainly looks like we are being set-up for another war via a false flag attack.

  10. gator69 says:

    Which is President Obama’s worst constitutional violation? Make your picks!”

    Make your picks!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s