:lolhit: Ren just has a sore spot for Jefferson. With her penchant for genealogy, I wouldn't be surprised if he got in an argument with one of her ancestors or something...

LOL, he's actually my gggg grandpa. Wrong side of the blanket, tho. You know how Jeffy just loved the , uh, women he shouldn't have hung around with...just kiddding, just kidding.......

I understand your point but liberals still share basic fundamental principles with our forefathers, like the principle of human rights and the principle of expanding freedom. If you read the writings of and about Thomas Paine, James Madison or Thomas Jefferson, you will see they shared many of the same values as today's liberals.
And also many of the values of today's libertarians and other conservatives.

Do you people not know the difference between military and militia? The militia are the people. Having the people armed as a potential militia balances the power of the military (and obviously the government).
If the militia and the people are one and the same, why is the militia "well-regulated"? "Militia" in the Second Amendment refers to the military. "People" is intended as contrast to the "militia" and, as you said, the "People" will have guns so as to make the government afraid of the "People".

If the militia and the people are one and the same, why is the militia "well-regulated"? "Militia" in the Second Amendment refers to the military. "People" is intended as contrast to the "militia" and, as you said, the "People" will have guns so as to make the government afraid of the "People".
I was under the impression that the militia referred to in the Second Amendment was a civilian armed force intended to supplement the military. Back then every white man was the in the militia, and they trained once a month in their towns.

Perhaps your time would be better spent listening to a Madona cd.
Can't wait! Her new album is coming out soon. Hopefully it will go #1 in over 40 countries like her last CD did 2005. :)

I was under the impression that the militia referred to in the Second Amendment was a civilian armed force intended to supplement the military. Back then every white man was the in the militia, and they trained once a month in their towns.

The original 2nd amendment was intended to prevent a standing army in times of peace. A standing army was seen as a threat because whoever controls it, controls the nation. They learned the lessons of Rome in that regard.

What it originally proposed was a militia comprised of every able-bodied man in the nation, who could pick up their weapons and come to the defense of the country if we were attacked.

What we ended up with was just a compromise that is so vague, its real meaning is constantly being reinterpreted.

The original 2nd amendment was intended to prevent a standing army in times of peace. A standing army was seen as a threat because whoever controls it, controls the nation. They learned the lessons of Rome in that regard.

What it originally proposed was a militia comprised of every able-bodied man in the nation, who could pick up their weapons and come to the defense of the country if we were attacked.

What we ended up with was just a compromise that is so vague, its real meaning is constantly being reinterpreted.
I don't think that the defense of the country was the primary impetus of the Second Amendment, if it was a motivation at all. Given the general sense of the rest of the Bill of Rights, the language of the amendment, and the general opinions of the Founding Fathers, I maintain that it was intended to prevent government from regulating firearms.

Then again, I'm bitter about living in one of the few cities in this country that ban handguns (unconstitutionally), so perhaps I'm just biased.