The reason for the 2nd amendment



I don’t have to make that connection. The 2nd Ammendment clearly makes it for me. Which is not to say it is the only expression of the right to keep and bear arms, but it is the only one which is compelled by Duty. And if we do our duty we have positioned ourselves to fulfill every other lawful expression.

Defense of persons and property is so fundamental to “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” (to borrow from the preceding Declaration) that the Founders did not think it necessary to specify. A fundamental principle of Liberty is self-government, or “the management of one’s own affairs”. I can’t much fulfill that if I cannot defend myself from “all enemies foreign and domestic.” And I cannot effectively mount a defense unarmed.
Nor can the Republic itself, without Citizen Militia. Because if you don’t think a tyranny will use the standing military to impose its will on the people, then you didn’t hear Joe Biden tell us “we are going to need some F-15s”.

It is you who supplies the ammunition with your own argumentative view of Militia as an organization rather than as an organic function of Citizenship. Because they see Militia the same way you do, so that they can compare it to the established (and not-neccesarily-Constitutional) US Armed Services. Only there is no valid comparison from the viewpoint of the Constitution, or the Founders writings.

This (emphasis added by me) proves my previous point. There is no “the” Militia separate from the Citizenry itself. We are all together the Militia, whether we believe it or not, whether we participate or not, whether we will ever muster if called, or not. But you and many others believe that Militia is some kind of organization, as in the next quote:

You seem here to assign motive to their actions which conveniently fits your argument. Maybe, just maybe, they acknowledge their Duty, and practice as they are able to prepare to serve within it if needed? I don’t know; perhaps someone should ask them. But even “formed local militias” are not Constitutional Militia, which is every armed, prepared, proficient, and willing Citizen throughout the Republic. And it also includes those who aren’t armed, or fit to fight, but can in some capacity willingly contribute service.

Because “legal scholars” know that “Duty” is not “requirement”. There is no draft into Militia, but there is a Duty implicit in Citizenship. We don’t make “doing my duty to God and my Country” mandatory because we insist on and defend Freedom and Liberty for all Americans. But like the Boy Scout pledge, we can voluntarily acknowledge our Duty, and perform it to the best of our ability. For me, that performance is being armed, being prepared, and staying proficient. And should there be a lawful call to muster, I will do that as well.

If you do not think that the Citizen Militia is both necessary and powerful, I invite you to observe Australia. The government there imposes its will on the people by force because the people have been disarmed. This became undeniably clear during Covid. Such a thing has not happened here because a daunting segment of We the People are armed, provisioned, prepared, and proficient. And we will defend our dutiful right to be so as necessary. Molon Labe!

If you still don’t understand, there is little more I can say to persuade you that:

We ARE the Militia.


It regularly frustrates me that the out of control activists get us arguing about minor points of minutia when something like the right to bear arms is indisputable. Yet if they can get folks arguing this or that minor sub point, they can call into question that which is, in fact, no question at all.

Unless the nation were to instigate and carry through on a standard alteration of the constitution, there is no reasonably debatable question here. But then they have convinced people that there is something to be argued about the question of how many genders there are too.

Everything is backwards, There actually IS a place for a refusal to entertain arguments when those arguments are blatantly false or irrational. They inappropriately refuse to hear any words to the contrary of their preferred view, and we wrongly entertain arguments that are utterly ridiculous, which we should not do. Like so many other things in the country right now, things are working in the exact opposite of the way they should.

Now it’s come to pass that these falsified and faked realities are being put forth on so many important fronts that a reasonable person is challenged just to try and remember what all the various areas of attack actually are.

We need a serious wakeup call as to just how badly, and how many multiples of things, have been seriously perverted.

This is a lot bigger than one subject, a lot bigger than a single line of absurd attacks on common sense thought, it’s happening in so many vital areas, like our kindergarten kids!, inflation, racism on steroids being blessed and championed, our economy and security being insanely compromised, some might even say suicidally compromised, and that is to mention just a very few of the BIG things being so terribly twisted out of all reasonable shape.

We should be standing the ground and refusing to legitimize the absurd by discussing minor points about that which does not even exist.

We must insist on reasonable conversations about real things and stop entertaining fantasies as if they might actually be real. Any time you fall for it and argue minor points of that which does not exist, you just hand them a stronger position than they actually have in reality. “Assault rifle” is a term we should have steadfastly refused from the very beginning because of its false use. Likewise with many other terms and identifications of things that are simply not real to begin with.

The reason for, and fact of, the 2nd amendment is clear and known, but we face people who adamantly deny the most obvious and undeniable of things. It’s time we faced that fact first, because without addressing it, there is no way to address their claims and wishes based on anything real.

We can’t address insanity by arguing the details of the delusion.


This is why I am so adamant that folks should affirm it is the right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms. Not because citizens are the militia but because citizens are the PEOPLE.

I have had several frustrating conversations with locals who insist their right to bear arms exists because they are the militia. I also ran into some people playing soldier in the CA desert asking what I was doing on the publicly owned land near their homes. They insisted the fact that they were a self regulated and practicing militia guaranteed their 2A right and that my rights could be questioned by authorities because I was not an active member of a regulated militia. I am not making this BS up. I believe it is a dangerous line of thinking that at least some supposedly pro 2A people seem to believe. If they can believe it, what’s to stop the anti self defense people from following their logic and taking it many steps further?

It is the right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms, period. We can practice that right for whatever reason we choose. If people choose to practice their 2A rights to affirm their duty as a member of the militia that’s fine and potentially vital to the survival of our nation. All I’m asking is for people to be careful with the language we use in order to keep the 2A from being any more violated and pidgin holed than it already is.


The generally accepted definition to which I agree is that the militia consists of all able bodied people that can be called upon in time of need. No pre call organization required. Though once called to service I believe the Constitution and early US laws made answering the call mandatory or at least a finable offense for not answering and allows for punishments for not following orders once you have answered the call. So once called upon the militia does become an organized group as opposed to a collection of citizens voluntarily doing their duty at their own convenience.

Though as I stated above I have run into some pro 2A people who seem to believe they must be in some form of regulated organization to be considered a militia member. Not to mention all the anti self defense people who seem to view the militia as a now defunct and no longer necessary entity.


You are quite correct. Arguing such things only leads to incorrect understandings that in turn limit the right, or at the very least suggest the right might have such limits when it does not. Accepting the conversation about gun laws while referring to the " Assault rifle " has a similar affect. You hand over victories, or partial victories where none is actually there to be had. We should not be doing this!

Labeling and discussions using a false premise or, misleading label, are the lefts bread and butter, stock and trade, go to tactic for nearly every debate, discussion, or description they engage in regarding any contentious issue. When you allow it, much less when you engage them using their chosen verbiage, you lend legitimacy to the illegitimate, and immediately give ground you only have to gain back later.

It should be clear by now that fair and genuine debate is of no interest to the opponents of the 2A, they have fully graduated beyond it, attempting instead to force their views on others, unashamedly and unapologetically, and they could care less how wrong it is, because they have accepted their own excuses for trampling everyone else’s rights even as they demand a fairness that, naturally, they also get to define.

Know the truth, state the truth, and steadfastly refuse any muddying of the truth used to gain a cheap advantage.


Although your perception of historical event should give support to a value of keeping arms, it isnt the reason for the 2nd Amendment. For a better/greater understanding of the amendments, i recommend a review of the minutes from the continetal congress meetings to include the “INTOLERABLE ACTS” placed on the colonies by the British Parliment.


Maybe the title I put is too clickbaity. It did spark a good conversation so far.

Correct. Just because I am older than 65, that doesn’t lose the right to bear arms.

And if we were ever invaded and someone suggested it was a violation of the Geneva Convention for me to be armed, I would say that the Geneva Convention is irrelevant, because our last enemy to even claim to attempt to abide by it was Nazi Germany!


I missed something in this conversation. Why does the Geneva Convention come into play?

1 Like

“If we were ever invaded…” since I am past the military’s mandatory retirement age, under the Geneva Convention, I would be considered an “unlawful combatant”. But “if we were ever invaded”, I would care what the Geneva Convention said.

I’m not an expert on the Geneva Convention or other sources of the Law of War, so everything I’m about to type might be completely bull.

But I think the term you’re looking for is “unprivileged combatant.” As a civilian, you’re not barred by the Geneva Conventions from protecting your homeland from invasion. However, you might not be afforded the protections guaranteed to uniformed military and militia members. (And we’ve seen how well those “guarantees” have worked.)

You have other protections, though. As a civilian, you might not have POW status, but you’re still supposed to be afforded some form of due process. I wouldn’t place my trust in an occupying power’s judicial system, however. I’m pretty sure the United States is the only place that sends captured terrorists to live out their days at a Caribbean retirement village.


And no organization. That’s why we need the 1st 13 words back in force and effect. Those Forgotten and Ignored 13 Words - by Courageous Lion

1 Like

Here are a few quotes about standing armies from some of the Founding Fathers. We are NOT, according to the US Constitution to HAVE a standing army!

What, sir, is the use of a militia? It is to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty. …Whenever Governments mean to invade the rights and liberties of the people, they always attempt to destroy the militia, in order to raise an army upon their ruins. —Elbridge Gerry, Fifth Vice President of the United States

“The army…is a dangerous instrument to play with.”
George Washington to Alexander Hamilton, April 4th, 1783

“A standing army is one of the greatest mischiefs that can possibly happen.”
James Madison, Debates, Virginia Convention, 1787

“Always remember that an armed and trained militia is the firmest bulwark of republics—that without standing armies their liberty can never be in danger, nor with large ones safe.”
James Madison, Inaugural Address, March 4, 1809

“Standing armies are dangerous to liberty.”
Alexander Hamilton, The Federalist Papers, 1787


Don’t you mean I could car less what the Geneva Convention states?

1 Like

I know of no prohibition against a standing Army in the U.S. Constitution.

It is true that the founding generation was distrustful of professional Armies, something they ironically inherited from their British ancestors (this has strong roots in the English Civil War of the 17th century). Most of the Continental Army was disbanded after the Revolution. But they quickly changed course when they realized that volunteer militias could not compete with Native Nations. The entire U.S. Army- as it existed at the time- had been decimated by the time the Bill of Rights was ratified, giving us both our 2nd Amendment protections (because militias were important) and 3rd Amendment protections (because they needed professional Soldiers).

“Weird Al” Yankovic - Word Crimes - YouTube

We may be the militia, but we are also VERY UNORGANIZED.

1 Like

No, there isn’t, but this is what it does state, from Article I, Section 8:

To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

To provide and maintain a Navy;

To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

That explains it simply put. A STANDING army is one that is in existence 24/7. We weren’t supposed to have one like that. We were supposed to only have an army in case of WAR declared by CONGRESS for a period of TWO YEARS. If we had not surrendered or won after two years it could be extended for another two years. The soldiers being drawn from the STATE MILITIAS. So no, there is NO provision for a standing army in the Constitution but the obvious way to establish an army is laid out in simple terms.