General Discussion

hack89

(39,181 posts)

34. No. It was merely one of the rights they enjoyed as Englishmen that they wanted to retain.

Fri Apr 17, 2015, 07:19 PM

Apr 2015

the right to bear arms was included in the English Bill of Rights of 1689 - along with other rights you will recognize in our Bill of Rights.

Yes, the 2A was right was critical to the militia system. But they still saw it as a fundamental individual right. Several state constitutions of the day actually do phrase it in terms of an individual right to self defense.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

40 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

No, Ted Cruz, the 2nd Amendment doesn�t protect your right to rebellion [View all] n2doc Apr 2015 OP

The Second Amendment is not a suicide pact that allows overthrow of US govt Gothmog Apr 2015 #1

Especially considering just how outgunned they are jeff47 Apr 2015 #4

Dunno, lancer78 Apr 2015 #6

US nut jobs are too soft and weak n2doc Apr 2015 #12

Because we aren't a totalitarian dictatorship willing to annihilate them. jeff47 Apr 2015 #25

indigenous group fighting a foreign army arely staircase Apr 2015 #36

Did you serve in the military? linuxman Apr 2015 #8

The Civil War was pretty brutal n2doc Apr 2015 #11

Different time different attitudes, different circumstances. linuxman Apr 2015 #15

how about protecting the right to vote? samsingh Apr 2015 #16

I'm not sure what you mean in the context of the thread. linuxman Apr 2015 #18

You demonize them just like the "ragheads" in American Sniper jeff47 Apr 2015 #26

against fellow citizens who started the whole thing by attacking the military arely staircase Apr 2015 #37

You mean like Fort Sumter? linuxman Apr 2015 #39

enough to get the job done nt arely staircase Apr 2015 #40

That is not what happens in rebellions. former9thward Apr 2015 #19

And if the military supports the rebels they will be bringing weapons. jeff47 Apr 2015 #27

Your right to own a weapon does not require a reason. former9thward Apr 2015 #30

Yeah, that's why there's no reason explicitly listed in the 2nd amendment jeff47 Apr 2015 #38

"...being necessary to the security of a free state..." DetlefK Apr 2015 #5

The Second Amendment is Corporate Welfare. onehandle Apr 2015 #2

The right dates back to the 1600's so I doubt that is the case. nt hack89 Apr 2015 #9

The idea of an armed and well-trained militia goes back to the Anglo-Saxons starroute Apr 2015 #24

An individual right to bear arms was in the first English Bill of Rights of 1689 hack89 Apr 2015 #28

he knows how stupid gun humpers are Skittles Apr 2015 #3

The 2A merely protects an individual right to keep and bear arms hack89 Apr 2015 #7

Sounds like what happened to the right to choice (abortion). NutmegYankee Apr 2015 #32

I don't think gun rights are so divisive as abortion hack89 Apr 2015 #33

Not one pro-choice person supports heavy regulation of abortion. NutmegYankee Apr 2015 #35

Ted, Kelvin Mace Apr 2015 #10

That's what we told the Taliban in 2001. former9thward Apr 2015 #20

Bit of a difference between Kelvin Mace Apr 2015 #22

Not that much difference. former9thward Apr 2015 #23

So if Rafael get elected, that means we can overthrow him with his blessing? n2doc Apr 2015 #13

But DERSHOWITZ & TOOBIN tell us he's very VERY *smart* & not to mock him!1 n/t UTUSN Apr 2015 #14

silly stupid cruz - why not protect the right to vote if it's liberty you want to promote? samsingh Apr 2015 #17

Because he does at least know that he would never win an election if it were fair. liberal N proud Apr 2015 #29

i wonder how far... Takket Apr 2015 #21

Ironically, the 2nd Amendment was written to prevent armed rebellions Oilwellian Apr 2015 #31

No. It was merely one of the rights they enjoyed as Englishmen that they wanted to retain. hack89 Apr 2015 #34