Amendment to the Constitution:  Article [II.]

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.






What's Arms?

Who gives the U.S. Government the right to infringe the people's right to "Keep and Bear Arms"?


You need to be a member of TheBlackList Pub to add comments!

Join TheBlackList Pub

Email me when people reply –


  • Chicago-Midwest


    "A free people ought not only to be armed and disciplined, but they should have sufficient arms and ammunition to maintain a status of independence from any who might attempt to abuse them, which would include their own government".

    General George Washington, First President of the United States , 1776

    I always like to start this discussion with a quote from one of the "Founding Fathers" and framers of the U.S. constitution, "straight from the horses mouth" as to the intent of the Second Amendment.  In other words, the 2nd Amendment was never intended for the purpose of “hunting” as the anti-gun nuts claim. It was included in the constitution because the founding fathers knew their own history and culture of tyranny, i.e. they had to protect them, from themselves. What they were used to was being abused by kings, war lords, land lords, etc.  They knew any group who held power for too long became abusive. This was their history, so they built in a safeguard against themselves.  The idea was that the government would be less likely to oppress and brutalize its own citizens, if those citizens had the same types of small arms, the government had!!!

    In the same way that a mouse, is not a baby rat, or a brussell  sprout, is not a baby cabbage, a semi automatic rifle, is not an assault rifle.  An assault rifle has full auto capability, i.e. a machine gun; a semi auto rifle does not.  It is actually legal to own an "assault rifle" in many states but the BATF background checks, the special taxes you have to pay, and be willing to let the BATF come at ANY TIME, UNANNOUNCED to inspect your weapons, makes most people settle for a semi auto rifle instead.  It takes a highly skilled operator to effectively use a full auto weapon.  It is far beyond the average persons ability or need.  If any group of weapons need to be constitutionally protected, it is military styled semi auto rifles and handguns with high capacity magazines!  These weapons were intended to be what is called "force multipliers", i.e. a weapon used by one person capable of stopping a simultaneous mass attack, by multiple aggressors.  I think most people have heard of the mother in Atlanta who protected herself and her kids, by shooting this butt hole who invaded their home.  She shot him 5 times in the neck and face, and he still didn't die! She had a 5 shot revolver.  What if there had been two invaders instead of one???  That's a classic example why people need handguns with high capacity magazines.

    The Black community needs to be crystal clear on this issue and stop buying into the anti-gun hype being propagated by agenda driven personalities, who would like nothing better than to see us unarmed and defenseless.  I find it truly ironic that white folks, who have benefited the most from this government, trust it the least; and Black folks who have benefited the least from this government, trust it the most.  

    • If it is necessary for a free people to have the ability to take up "Arms" against their government, then, the Gun which was the top off the line in the "Arms" race in the 18th century is obsolete. Ask Saddam and Khadafi.

      Air power and weapons of mass destruction may be the only threat against tyranny.

      Saying BOMB could land one in Gitmo.

      What's the problem with lowly Gun?

      Do I have a Right to own a Aircraft Carrier and all it armaments - "Arms"?

      Note the Second Amendment mention the Right to "Keep and Bear Arms" - not keep and carry guns.

      So why do We acquiesce to the restrictions against public ownership of weapons mass destruction?

      Why in the interpretation of the Constitution Gun has become a generic term for "Arm

    • Chicago-Midwest

      I have no idea what you are talking about in your first paragraph.

      The Japanese had both air power and weapons of mass destruction during WWII but decided not to attack the west coast of the U.S. as a direct result of the 2nd Amendment!  They felt if they attacked with ground troops, that they would not only be fighting the American military, but the American people! That is the same exact reason the the U.S. has never invaded Cuba.  They would not be fighting the Cuban military, they would be fighting the Cuban People.  The U.S. learned the futility of that kind of fighting in Viet Nam.

      Reading is fundamental, I said the intent was for the average citizen to have access to the same types of SMALL ARMS, not Aricraft Carriers and cannons!

      What do you think the term "bear" means???  Both the US Supreme Court, and the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals has determined that it means "to have with you" i.e. to "carry on your person"!

      To answer your last question, the "gun" is the most practical of current day "arms" which is simply a generic term for weapon.

      I have no illusions regarding the constitution of the u s of KKKa. I know that it did not originally include, consider or represent the interests of my ancestors. Because my ancestors were victims of ameriKKKan oppression and not participating, or equal, beneficiaries of this new nation even though they sacrificed in and served the rebellion. A rebellion that was perpetrated by the agents of the gangsterous usurping english empire no different than the rebellion waged by thug Gotti against his boss Paul Castillano. But what is clear, is that the technology that led to this nation's so-called 'freedom' from the rule of the english crown, was the black powder musket. The musket was the MILITARY weapon of the time. The MUSKET was the citizens' AR-15 of the time. The so-called founding fathers included the 1st amendment to their constitution the guarantee and protect their freedom of speech and assembly. And immediately realized they also needed a second amendment to guarantee that they would have the means and technology to protect the 1st amendment rights. The second amendment does not protect the citizens' rights to bear muskets, AR-15s or slingshots. It protects the right to bear ARMS. To state today that the AR-15 SEMI-AUTO SPORT RIFLE is not protected would be equivalent to saying that during the 1700's the ameriKKKan citizen only had the right to a slingshot. The purpose of the 2nd amendment is to protect free citizens AGAINST the tyranny of rulers/governments, foreign or domestic. PERIOD!

      May I suggest that you read this piece below so you have some basis for intelligent conversation on the subject at hand. 

      The Truth About Assault Weapons
    • In defference to all that you written: There are are 2 question and they very, very simple.

      The questions are:


      What's "Arms"?

      Who gives the U.S. Government the right to infringe the people's right to "Keep and Bear Arms"?

      That's all.

      Very simple!

    • Chicago-Midwest

      In the context of this discussion "arms" means guns or firearms, i.e. handguns,  shotguns and rifles.

      No one gives the U.S. Govt. the right to infringe on the peoples right to keep and bear arms.  They are bamboozelling a woefully ignorant public that function more like brain  dead sheeple, than thinking human beings.

This reply was deleted.