In response to
The Blood of Innocents
Hamilton in IL
Monday, December 17, 2012 at 7:08 PM
In response to
The Right Opinion
-
Obama May Survive, but Scandals a Blow to Left
-
Weathering the Politicians
-
When Did We Vote to Become Mexico?
-
IRS's Lois Lerner Pleads the Fifth
-
More Questions Than Answers
-
The NLRB's School-Door Stand
-
Paranoid or Prescient?
-
Low-Skilled Workers Get Raw Deal Under Obamacare
-
Obama and 'Overreach'
-
The Beauty of Confusion
-
The President's Morehouse Address
-
Obama's Scandals -- and His Media Co-Conspirators
- More Opinion
Policy and Analysis
Our Mission
The Patriot Post's mission is to advocate for Essential Liberty, the restoration of constitutional limits on government and the judiciary, and to promote free enterprise, national defense and traditional American values. Our objective is to provide Patriots across our nation with a touchstone of First Principles through brief, informative and entertaining analyses of relevant news, policy and opinion from reputable research, advocacy and media organizations, so they may better support and defend those Principles, and enlist others to join our ranks." —Mark Alexander, Publisher
The Patriot Post is not sustained by any political, special interest or parent organization, and we accept no advertising. Our mission and operations are funded entirely by the voluntary financial support of Patriots like you!
Craigclev,
Anyone can quote the second amendment, brain boy. You can quote it, but I agree with others that maybe you don't understand it. In the old english of the time, "well regulated" would mean "well equipped" by today's vernacular, not 'well controlled' as you assert.
During the revolutionary war, one of Washington's biggest problems was a lack of arms. By that experience, the Founders knew the value of being well equipped, and therefore they wanted that condition for The People. Hence, the second amendment.
You are correct, that the "arms" aren't specified. Gee brain boy, have you ever thought that that was maybe by intent? Did you ever consider that with a lack of specificity, we would need to refer to our history for the true meaning? No, probably not. Liberals like you don't value the accuracy provided by the historical context. That's why you insist that the Constitution is undefined and open ended, that there's no right or wrong in it.
Do you think the Founders meant for the People to keep and bear single-shot flint-locks, forever, never mind technological progress with the passage of time? Less than a decade after the close of the war, who could they have had in mind as they envisioned an armed citizen? Could it have been the foot soldier who won their freedom, and the freedom of generations of progeny? Of course; who else? By that standard, and comparing our citizenry to our military, our citizenry is under-armed.