Bushmaster

[BT]

It has everything to do, about attempting to protect us from an oppressive government

So it isn't meant to protect us from an invading army? Or civil rebellion?

[Plane]

As passed by the Congress:
 

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.
 
As ratified by the States and authenticated by Thomas Jefferson, Secretary of State:
 

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.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution


Hmmmm...

I guess that "the security of a free state" is what the admendment is about, so if a militia can help repulse an invasion that would be appropriate, has this ever happened?

Militias are not formed for hunting partys and hunting is little related to "the security of a free state" so I disagree about the garuntee for hunting.

Do you see as I do , a mandate in here for the state to maintain the order of the militia and thus implied a right of the state to impress soldiers from the citizens?

[BT]

The fact that the governor could call up units from the citizenry to consolidate a militia, is not in question. The necessity of a militia, comprised of citizen soldiers, required them to provide their own arms, if they could afford to. So in effect, citizens would need to have arms at the ready.

Hmm. I wonder if this was the first mandate.

[sirs]

It has everything to do, about attempting to protect us from an oppressive government

So it isn't meant to protect us from an invading army? Or civil rebellion?

That pretty much fits into the hunting category, as that's not the purpose of the Bill of Rights.  But yea, it sure would help in those endeavors, as it would in hunting bear

[BT]

Perhaps you can show me where in the second, oppressive governments are mentioned.

[Xavier_Onassis]

It is pretty certain that all the firearms owned by the citizens in 1780 were used far more for hunting than any other purpose.

[sirs]

Perhaps you can show me where in the second, oppressive governments are mentioned.

Or better perhaps you can read the Bill of Rights, as in all of them, for context.  Here's a hint, no where does it referencing hunting.

[sirs]

It is pretty certain that all the firearms owned by the citizens in 1780 were used far more for hunting than any other purpose.

Which means......nothing as it relates, to the 2nd amendment to the U.S. Constitution     

[BT]

Perhaps you can show me where in the second, oppressive governments are mentioned.

Or better perhaps you can read the Bill of Rights, as in all of them, for context.  Here's a hint, no where does it referencing hunting.

Which Amendment gives us the right to overthrow an oppressive government.

Be Specific.

[sirs]

Strange how I never claimed it did.  Oh well.  Hope that was specific enough

[BT]

But you did. You claimed the second was written for the purpose of protecting from oppressive government. You were pretty adamant about it. You said i should search the amendments for context to that claim. Not there.

I think you inferred that would be one of the purposes of firearms. But you seemed to poo poo the idea that ownership of firearms would be a great boon to hunting or even pushing back invading countries or civil unrest. The main point being an armed populous was not only legal it was encouraged.

I find it curious that your inference is the only correct deduction, at least in your mind.

[sirs]

But I didn't......."It has everything to do, about attempting to protect us from an oppressive government".  No where in that quote am I saying there's some dictated right to overthrow an oppressive government.  Those are YOUR words, not mine

Yea, I think that's specific enough, as far as playing this latest word game of yours

[BT]

In order to overthrow one must attempt to protect. And again where is it written in the text of the second that that is the main purpose.

[Plane]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

Patrick Henry, in the Virginia ratification convention June 5, 1788, eloquently argued for the dual rights to arms and resistance to oppression:
 

Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are inevitably ruined.[79]
 
While both Monroe and Adams supported ratification of the Constitution, its most influential framer was James Madison. In Federalist No. 46, he confidently contrasted the federal government of the United States to the European kingdoms, which he contemptuously described as "afraid to trust the people with arms." He assured his fellow citizens that they need never fear their government because of "the advantage of being armed...."[citation needed]

  I posit that if anyone at all understood what is ment in the wording of the second admendment , James Madison would know what was ment when he wrote it.
   So what James Madison writes in explanation (Federalist Papers) is pertanant.

[Xavier_Onassis]

Which means......nothing as it relates, to the 2nd amendment to the U.S. Constitution     

===========================================
Except that if one has no rifles, it is lots harder to hunt. Imagine hunting bears with a dagger. And again, the Feds knew that they did not have the capability of disarming a largely rural population, anyway.

It is unrealistic and silly to assume that the Founding Fathers were not politicians and did not think and describe things as politicians always do.