It says 'civil power'.. Not people. In other words.. The military (i.e. Guard) is subordinate to the State Government.

A bunch of white dudes sat around and wrote up those rights. They are not timeless, although they tried very hard.

Why is that better than what could be done now? What if a new one was drafted and they wore wigs?

and the government is supposed to be regulated by the

**people**

how can this be maintained if the people are unarmed due to government intervention

are reading my posts i would of swore you said you refrain from reading them it just works out better for you

The Gun is Civilization by Maj. L. Caudill USMC (Ret)

Human beings only have two ways to deal with one another:
reason and force. If you want me to do something for you,
you have a choice of either convincing me via argument, or
force me to do your bidding under threat of force. Every
human interaction falls into one of those two categories,
without exception. Reason or force, that's it.

In a truly moral and civilized society, people exclusively
interact through persuasion. Force has no place as a valid
method of social interaction, and the only thing that
removes force from the menu is the personal firearm, as
paradoxical as it may sound to some.

When I carry a gun, you cannot deal with me by force. You
have to use reason and try to persuade me, because I have
a way to negate your threat or employment of force.

The gun is the only personal weapon that puts a 100-pound
woman on equal footing with a 220-pound mugger, a 75-year
old retiree on equal footing with a 19-year old gang
banger, and a single guy on equal footing with a
carload of drunk guys with baseball bats. The gun removes
the disparity in physical strength, size, or numbers
between a potential attacker and a defender.

There are plenty of people who consider the gun as the
source of bad force equations. These are the people who
think that we'd be more civilized if all guns were removed
from society, because a firearm makes it easier for a
[armed] mugger to do his job. That, of course, is only
true if the mugger's potential victims are mostly disarmed
either by choice or by legislative fiat--it has no
validity when most of a mugger's potential marks are
armed.

People who argue for the banning of arms ask for automatic
rule by the young, the strong, and the many, and that's
the exact opposite of a civilized society. A mugger, even
an armed one, can only make a successful living in a
society where the state has granted him a force monopoly.

Then there's the argument that the gun makes
confrontations lethal that otherwise would only result in
injury. This argument is fallacious in several ways.
Without guns involved, confrontations are won by the
physically superior party inflicting overwhelming injury
on the loser.

People who think that fists, bats, sticks, or stones don't
constitute lethal force watch too much TV, where people
take beatings and come out of it with a bloody lip at
worst. The fact that the gun makes lethal force easier
works solely in favor of the weaker defender, not the
stronger attacker. If both are armed, the field is level.

The gun is the only weapon that's as lethal in the hands
of an octogenarian as it is in the hands of a weight
lifter. It simply wouldn't work as well as a force
equalizer if it wasn't both lethal and easily employable.

When I carry a gun, I don't do so because I am looking for
a fight, but because I'm looking to be left alone. The gun
at my side means that I cannot be forced, only persuaded.
I don't carry it because I'm afraid, but because it
enables me to be unafraid. It doesn't limit the actions of
those who would interact with me through reason, only the
actions of those who would do so by force. It removes
force from the equation...and that's why carrying a gun is
a civilized act.

Lilith in a wig...hhmm...one like Zeta-Jones in Chicago...hhmmm..


Oh wait..different topic again..damn...single track mind today...

and what dif does it make what color they were

why are you making this a racial issue

any citizen has the right regardless of color

i say again, listen to our forefathers, and apply commen sense. How would arming more people that work for the government protect us from the government? The people who wrote the thing say that it is intended to arm the "people". And yes, the states have the right to organize and train militia members, but the people also have the right to bear arms. At no point does it say, "it is the right of the militia members to keep and bear arms". But anyway. Listen to their quotes. Look at their purpose. The right to bear arms is not only for self defense, but more importantly it is to help protect us from tyranny in our government.

Those who would offer any interpretation that would relegate Amendment II to "relic" status of a bygone era are blatantly stating that the remainder of the Bill of Rights isn't worth a damn, either.

agreed, and they also need to find themselves a "modern" country to live in...

Absent the willingness to go to war…the Elite fear NOTHING from us, we the people.FREEDOM is a mindset. Either you choose for yourself OR you give up freedom and let someone else make your decisions!Assuming you can never lose your freedom “is a mistake a free people get to make only once"

From the briefs of the Supreme Court, Washington DC v Heller:

To limit the right to keep and bear arms to a state regulated militia is to disregard what the Framers understood -- that individual possession of arms is essential to preventing usurpation by the state.

I would swear this precedent says that the supreme court sides with the fact that the 2a ia a citizens right

‘‘You need only reflect that one of the best ways to get yourself a reputation as a dangerous citizen these days is to go about repeating the very phrases which our founding fathers used in the struggle for independence."

there is nothing to be improved upon. if the constitution was written in these days, it would be a bunch of nonsensical bs that would leave the people with fewer rights than the originial constitution says we're all entitled to

"We become what we habitually do. If we act rightly, we become upright men. If we habitually act wrongly, or weakly, we become weak and corrupt" - *ARISTOTLE*

Be as beneficent as the sun or the sea, but if your rights as a rational being are trenched on, die on the first inch of your territory.
Ralph Waldo Emerson

You are not going to be able to reason with these folks until they get their heads out of the sand and actually research the issue for themselves. They have absolutely NO idea of what is actually going on and they are content in existing in their ignorant blissful state. Apathy is what it is...and Apathy is what will destroy this nation.

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

Yes... Tyranny from the Federal Government. The source of any possible tyranny from within.
The governing body is the State the militia resides in. The Commander in Chief to that militia is the elected Governer. So.. if a regulated militia is all able bodied armed people of the State. We are governed by the State we live in... We can be called to service by the Govener, against the Federal Govornment.

How exactly do you think the South went about it, during the Civil War?

In November 1860, Lincoln was elected.
In December a call for a convention to deliberate the Southern Confederacy.
A week later, South Carolina seceded from the Union.
Then Mississipi, Florida, Alabama, Georgia...etc....

By February Jefferson Davis was elected President of the Confederacy.

It wasn't a bunch of hillbillies behind the stil... It was State Governments, following the will of the people in the State.

it will never get through. Anti gunners will hide behind the pretense of responsible gun ownership until they say even that didn't help. The founding fathers intentions, decsribed quite clearly in their journals will forever be ignored by these people, and they will fall back on the state argument, even though the intent was clearly described in their writings.