The 1 Reason for the 2nd Amendment

There are only two different kinds of people in this world; those that want to be left alone and those that won’t leave you alone.  The 2nd Amendment stands as a last line of defense against those that would seek to harm you both…

Individually or Collectively.













19 comments to The 1 Reason for the 2nd Amendment

  • joshua10

    As my first firearms instructor, who was an active duty Los Angeles police academy firearms instructor and NRA Life Member, said to me and a room full of newly minted civilian gun owners during class, “No one wants to disarm you unless they intend to hurt you without fear of reprisal.”

    Down here in Florida, when our local Sheriff advised us to be able to defend our families and property from looters and other criminals for a period not less than 3 weeks after a major hurricane hits (i.e. Katrina), he wasn’t talking about using harsh language. I’m listening to what that man has to say!

  • Paul Prichard

    I would rather have to explain myself to 12 jurors than be carried by 6 pall bearers.

  • Silver Shield

    Ain’t that the truth.

  • Paleolibertarian

    Great collection of pics, Chris. I might just show this to a few liberals and watch their heads explode.

    On a more constructive level, anyone who saves money (or tangibles), would bring themselves or their kids to the hospital, buys insurance, prays, or prepares for the future in any way should have guns.

  • SRV ES339

    … and I thought it was so Americans could murder each other at one of the highest rates in the world… then put the shooters to death (as long as they’re poor, hipanic, of black)… my bad

  • Ben

    Glock……’s what’s for dinner.

  • Joe (Well-Armed Lamb)

    So, SRV ES339, you want me to tell you a little story? Here’s how it’ll go down.

    Some dark, lonely night, they will come for me, and they will come for you.

    But there will be one small difference.

    You see, I’m a well-armed lamb. I may live, or I may die, but I assure you that some of those who come to do ME harm that night will not go home to see their loved ones. And maybe, just maybe, the others will think about that before they go out to get the next person.

    But for YOU?? Well…my friend….you…you’re waterboard-meat.

  • joshua10

    @SRV ES339, in case you didn’t know, one of America’s Founding Fathers, Thomas Jefferson once said, “I prefer dangerous freedom over peaceful slavery.” As an American of African descent, I couldn’t agree with him more.

  • lastmanstanding

    srv, you are a lost cause. hopefully you live in a foreign land where you have already given up.

    I’m with Joshua, Joe and Patrick Henry,”give me liberty…or give me death.”

  • twisted titan



  • Bob

    “A nation of sheep ALWAYS begats a govenment of WOLVES.”

  • Patriot Dan

    Titan, what did you do?? I have always feared this and have not come up with a plan of action if that happens to me. Thanks.

  • JAK


    • Silver Shield

      I would agree but I guess we could have a healthy debate about who a terrorist is.

      One man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter.

  • MrDuck

    Terrorist is what the big army calls the small one…

    Just wanted to give a shout out to the Gun Owners of America is this thread as an alternative to those who would consider supporting the NRA.

    “The only no-compromise gun lobby in Washington”, -Ron Paul

  • harm me an mine ……..die you must.

  • I belong to both NRA and GOA. And I wouldn’t knock the NRA. They are the main reason we still have a 2nd Amendment, and an Implicit Militia. Both will be at Concord Bridge.

  • Bill

    If, as some may argue, that the Second Amendment’s “militia” meaning, is that every person has a right to keep and bear arms. The only way to describe one’s right as a private individual, is not as a “militia” but as a “person” (“The individual personality of a human being: self.”). “Person” or “persons“” is mentioned in the Constitution 49 times, to explicitly describe, clarify and mandate a Constitutional legal standing as to a “person”, his or her Constitutional rights. Whereas in the Second Amendment, reference to “person” is not to be found. Was there are reason?. The obvious question arises, why did the Framers use the noun “person/s” as liberally as they did throughout the Constitution 49 times and not apply this understanding to explicitly convey same legal standard in defining an individual’s right to bear arms as a “person”?
    Merriam Webster “militia”, “a body of citizens organized for military service : a whole body of able-bodied male citizens declared by law as being subject to call to military service.

    Article 2, Section 2 “The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into actual Service of the United States;…”

    In the whole of the U.S. Constitution, “militia” is mentioned 5 times. In these references there is no mention of person or persons. One reference to “people“ in the Second Amendment. People, meaning not a person but persons, in describing a “militia”. “People” is mentioned a total 9 times.

    It’s not enough to just say that “person(s)” is mentioned in the United States Constitution 49 times. But to see it for yourself, and the realization was for the concern envisioned by the Framers that every “person” be secure in these rights explicitly spelled out, referenced and understood how these rights were to be applied to that “person”.

    “..No Person shall be a Representative..”
    “..whole Number of free Persons,..”
    “..three fifths of all other Persons…”
    “..No person shall be a Senator…”
    “..And no Person shall be convicted…”
    “ Person holding any Office…”
    “..Names of the Persons voting for…”
    “…of such Persons as any of the States…”
    “…not exceeding ten dollars for each Person…”
    “…And no Person holding any…”
    “…or Person holding an Office of Trust o…“
    “…and vote by Ballot for two persons,…”
    “…List of all the Persons voted for,…”
    “…The Person having the greatest Number of Votes…”
    “…and if no Person have a Majority,…”
    “…the Person having the greatest Number…”
    “…No person except a natural born Citizen,…”
    “…Any Person be eligible to that ….”
    “…No Person shall be convicted of …”
    “…except during the Life of the Person attainted….”.
    “…A Person charged in any State…”
    “…No Person held to Service…”
    “…The right of the people to be secure in their persons,…”
    “…and the persons or things to be seized….”
    “..No person shall be held to answer…”
    “..nor shall any person be subject for the same offense….”
    “…they shall name in their ballots the person voted for as President,…”
    “…the person voted for as Vice-President,…”
    “…all persons voted for as President,….”
    “…all persons voted for as Vice-President…”
    “…The person having the greatest Number of votes for President, …”
    “…and if no person have such majority,…”
    “..the persons having the highest numbers …”
    “… The person having the greatest number of votes…”
    “..and if no person have a majority,…”
    “…But no person constitutionally ineligible…”
    “…All persons born or naturalized …”
    “…nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property,…”
    “…nor deny to any person within …”
    “…number of persons in each State,….”
    “…No person shall be a Senator or …”
    “..and such person shall act accordingly….”
    “…of the death of any of the persons from…”
    “…death of any of the persons from…”
    “…No person shall be elected to the office…”
    “…and no person who has held the office of President,…”
    “ which some other person was elected…”
    “…shall not apply to any person holding the office…”
    “..prevent any person who may be holding…”

    Excerpts in reading Emerson v. United States (1999), or Miller v. United States (1939), one can be struck with the many thoughts, interpretations of what the second amendment means, but more important how it came about and ended. However, even still, I am left with the thought if the Framers had treated Amendment 2 with the same obedience, and reverence to explain the 49 Constitutional references to “person”, there would be no controversy in what is perceived as a right to bear arms.

    United States v Emerson
    “The American colonists exercised their right to bear arms under the English Bill of Rights. Indeed, the English government’s success in luring Englishmen to America was due in part to pledges that the immigrants and their children would continue to possess “all the rights of natural subjects, as if born and abiding in England.”
    “A foundation of American political thought during the Revolutionary period was the well justified concern about political corruption and governmental tyranny. Even the federalists, fending off their opponents who accused them of creating an oppressive regime, were careful to acknowledge the risks of tyranny. Against that backdrop, the framers saw the personal right to bear arms as a potential check against tyranny.”
    “The framers thought the personal right to bear arms to be a paramount right by which other rights could be protected. Therefore, writing after the ratification of the Constitution, but before the election of the first Congress, James Monroe included “the right to keep and bear arms” in a list of basic “human rights” which he proposed to be added to the Constitution. HALBROOK, supra at 223 n. 145 (citing James Monroe Papers, New York Public Library (Miscellaneous Papers of James Monroe)).”

    307 U.S. 174 United States v. Miller
    Structural Analysis
    “Furthermore, the very inclusion of the right to keep and bear arms in the Bill of Rights shows that the framers of the Constitution considered it an individual right. “After all, the Bill of Rights is not a bill of states’ rights, but the bill of rights retained by the people.” David Harmer, Securing a Free State: Why The Second Amendment Matters, 1998 BYU L. REV. 55, 60 (1998). Of the first ten amendments to the Constitution, only the Tenth concerns itself with the rights of the states, and refers to such rights in addition to, not instead of, individual rights. Id. Thus the structure of the Second Amendment, viewed in the context of the entire Bill of Rights, evinces an intent to recognize an individual right retained by the people.”

    After debating by the Framers on the proposed right to bear arms, from these few references, some credence is given to the “intent” to “to bear arms”. Analysis of structural statutory construction, “..viewed in the context of the entire Bill of Rights,..” individual citizens, a person, to “bear arms“ however proposed and debated, there is reference to “person” mentioned 49 times, is this not to be considered when looking at the context of the entire Bill Of Rights? Right to bear arms was debated and proposed, but the Second Amendment remains silent.

    Jones v Smart [1785} 1 Term Rep.44,52 (per Buller, J.) “[W]e are bound to take the act of parliament, as they made it: a casus omissus can in no case be supplied by a Court of Law, for that would be to makes laws.” (Reading Law: The Interpretation of Legal Texts) Antonin Scalia/ Bryan A. Gardner .West.

    What am I missing?

  • tommy

    That it can not be Infringed and they are GOD given rights given to all men….and with that and the mortal words of Ted Nugent ,I dont need need no Document to tell me that I have a right to defend myself my GOD given gift of LIFE! !!! Does that seem strange maybe Im just weird,I can and will defend myself and my Family period It is all our right given by god and backed by the constitution … I hope this helps you with what you may be missing they are our inalienable rights and cannot be taken,they can only be given up Voluntarily and I for one am not in the giving mood..

    Tommy D. Fleming

Support our fight with a one time donation.


Over 300+ Videos