2nd Amendment Unapologetic Meaning

Discussion in 'US Constitution' started by capego, Jul 4, 2018.

  1. BasicHumanUnit
    Offline

    BasicHumanUnit Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jun 1, 2013
    Messages:
    5,426
    Thanks Received:
    970
    Trophy Points:
    280
    Location:
    Everywhere needed
    Ratings:
    +5,675
    It is the 2nd Amendment that safeguards the 1st Amendment.

    US History 101
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
    • Funny Funny x 1
  2. danielpalos
    Offline

    danielpalos Platinum Member

    Top Poster Of Month

    Joined:
    Jan 24, 2015
    Messages:
    38,951
    Thanks Received:
    901
    Trophy Points:
    1,155
    Location:
    Alta California, federalist.
    Ratings:
    +5,539
    The only one who is Clueless and Causeless, is You.
     
  3. ThunderKiss1965
    Offline

    ThunderKiss1965 Gold Member

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2015
    Messages:
    6,711
    Thanks Received:
    1,230
    Trophy Points:
    290
    Location:
    GNO
    Ratings:
    +6,213
    Your opinion, now here are a few opinions on the subject of a individuals right to bear arms. You might recognize some of these people/

    "No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms."
    - Thomas Jefferson, Virginia Constitution, Draft 1, 1776

    "What country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance. Let them take arms."
    - Thomas Jefferson, letter to James Madison, December 20, 1787

    "The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes.... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man."
    - Thomas Jefferson, Commonplace Book (quoting 18th century criminologist Cesare Beccaria), 1774-1776

    "A strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species of exercises, I advise the gun. While this gives moderate exercise to the body, it gives boldness, enterprise and independence to the mind. Games played with the ball, and others of that nature, are too violent for the body and stamp no character on the mind. Let your gun therefore be your constant companion of your walks." - Thomas Jefferson, letter to Peter Carr, August 19, 1785

    "The Constitution of most of our states (and of the United States) assert that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed."
    - Thomas Jefferson, letter to to John Cartwright, 5 June 1824

    "To disarm the people...s the most effectual way to enslave them."
    - George Mason, referencing advice given to the British Parliament by Pennsylvania governor Sir William Keith, The Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution, June 14, 1788

    "Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined.... The great object is that every man be armed. Everyone who is able might have a gun."
    - Patrick Henry, Speech to the Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 5, 1778

    "The Constitution shall never be construed to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms."
    - Samuel Adams, Massachusetts Ratifying Convention, 1788

    "As civil rulers, not having their duty to the people before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as the military forces which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the article in their right to keep and bear their private arms."
    - Tench Coxe, Philadelphia Federal Gazette, June 18, 1789

    "If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no resource left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government, and which against the usurpations of the national rulers, may be exerted with infinitely better prospect of success than against those of the rulers of an individual state. In a single state, if the persons intrusted with supreme power become usurpers, the different parcels, subdivisions, or districts of which it consists, having no distinct government in each, can take no regular measures for defense. The citizens must rush tumultuously to arms, without concert, without system, without resource; except in their courage and despair."
    - Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 28
     
    • Funny Funny x 2
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  4. ThunderKiss1965
    Offline

    ThunderKiss1965 Gold Member

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2015
    Messages:
    6,711
    Thanks Received:
    1,230
    Trophy Points:
    290
    Location:
    GNO
    Ratings:
    +6,213
    It is the 2nd Amendment that safeguards all of our rights as law abiding US citizens.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
    • Funny Funny x 1
  5. danielpalos
    Offline

    danielpalos Platinum Member

    Top Poster Of Month

    Joined:
    Jan 24, 2015
    Messages:
    38,951
    Thanks Received:
    901
    Trophy Points:
    1,155
    Location:
    Alta California, federalist.
    Ratings:
    +5,539
    so what; our Constitution is Express, not Implied.
     
  6. C_Clayton_Jones
    Offline

    C_Clayton_Jones Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2011
    Messages:
    48,019
    Thanks Received:
    10,235
    Trophy Points:
    2,030
    Location:
    In a Republic, actually
    Ratings:
    +31,863
    Actually not.

    The First Amendment is the ultimate safeguard against tyranny – it guarantees not only the right of the people to freedom of expression and a free press, but it also guarantees the people the right to petition the government for a redress of grievances, the right to participate in the political process, and the right to participate in the judicial process should the political process fail – none of which can be discarded or circumvented by a minority through force of arms.

    And again, the purpose of the Second Amendment is to enshrine an individual right to possess a firearm pursuant to lawful self-defense, not to act in the capacity of ‘law enforcement,’ not to ‘deter crime,’ and not to ‘combat tyranny’ by means of armed rebellion.
     
  7. C_Clayton_Jones
    Offline

    C_Clayton_Jones Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2011
    Messages:
    48,019
    Thanks Received:
    10,235
    Trophy Points:
    2,030
    Location:
    In a Republic, actually
    Ratings:
    +31,863
    Also wrong.

    In this and scores of other threads on the topic, no advocate of the wrongheaded notion that the Second Amendment is a ‘safeguard against tyranny’ has provided any evidence, any lawful citation, any reading or ruling concerning the Second Amendment that identifies when government has become ‘tyrannical.’

    Advocates of this wrongheaded notion have provided no lawful, Constitutional process that authorizes an armed minority to ‘take up arms’ against a lawfully elected government reflecting the will of the majority of the people.

    Advocates of this wrongheaded notion have provided no lawful, Constitutional process that by which the rights enshrined in the First Amendment are suspended, denying the people their right to participate in the political and judicial process.

    Advocates of this wrongheaded notion have provided no lawful, Constitutional process that garners the consensus of the people that government has become ‘tyrannical,’ where the majority of the people support ‘armed rebellion’ against a government having become ‘tyrannical.’

    Indeed, what is the process by which the Constitution itself is abandoned, the rule of law discarded, and the will of the people ignored justifying ‘armed rebellion’ against ‘tyranny.’

    The simple fact is that there is no evidence, no lawful citation, and no reading or ruling concerning the Second Amendment that identifies when government has become ‘tyrannical’; such evidence simply doesn’t exist – it’s nothing but contrived mythology and baseless inference on the part of the political right desperately trying to ‘justify’ the possession of firearms other than the right to self-defense.
     
    • Informative Informative x 1
  8. danielpalos
    Offline

    danielpalos Platinum Member

    Top Poster Of Month

    Joined:
    Jan 24, 2015
    Messages:
    38,951
    Thanks Received:
    901
    Trophy Points:
    1,155
    Location:
    Alta California, federalist.
    Ratings:
    +5,539
    Our Second Amendment clearly expresses the security of a free State, as the Intent and Purpose.
     
  9. C_Clayton_Jones
    Offline

    C_Clayton_Jones Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2011
    Messages:
    48,019
    Thanks Received:
    10,235
    Trophy Points:
    2,030
    Location:
    In a Republic, actually
    Ratings:
    +31,863
    Subjective opinion, not fact of law.

    See post #187, respond with objective, documented legal evidence authorizing abandoning the Constitution, the rule of law, and the will of the people to ‘overthrow’ a lawfully installed government through ‘force of arms.’
     
  10. frigidweirdo
    Online

    frigidweirdo Platinum Member

    Joined:
    Mar 7, 2014
    Messages:
    31,920
    Thanks Received:
    3,193
    Trophy Points:
    1,130
    Ratings:
    +13,262
    I would disagree.

    The First Amendment is at the forefront of defense against tyranny. It's something that happens day in, day out.

    Every day people are able to criticize the government, protest the government etc.

    The Second Amendment is something that happens when the First Amendment has broken down, when people can't criticize the government openly, when they can't protest, that's when you take up arms, that's why it's the ultimate.

    That doesn't stop the First Amendment being hugely important, more so than the Second Amendment, because it is working day in, day out, whereas the Second Amendment's power may have had an impact on US politics, but that's hard to judge.

    Again, no, the Second Amendment is NOT there fore self defense at all. There's no evidence this is the case other than a bunch of right wingers going to a right leaning court and saying it's so.

    Not one single document relates the Second Amendment to self defense.

    The right to keep arms was there to protect individuals owning guns so they could fight in the militia, which is the right to bear arms.

    Otherwise the Second Amendment doesn't make sense.

    "A well regulated militia..."

    Who would start an amendment about personal self defense with "A well regulated militia..."?

    That makes no sense at all.

    If you're going to write an amendment protecting the Militia, start it with "A well regulated militia...", if you're going to start one about self defense, you'd write "self defense.", wouldn't you?
     

Share This Page

Search tags for this page

best cameras