The 2nd Amendment (Why we our Founders wrote it)

[HereWeGoAgain]

The Right to Bear Arms (i.e. the 2nd Amendment) was seen by our Founding Fathers as the last check against tyranny. They knew that the best line of defense against a standing army was an armed populace.

"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

"f circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little, if at all, inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their own rights and those of their fellow-citizens. This appears to me the only substitute that can be devised for a standing army, and the best possible security against it, if it should exist."

- Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 28

The people who wish to preserve liberty and are capable of bearing arms are the militia.

“A militia when properly formed are in fact the people themselves…and include, according to the past and general usuage of the states, all men capable of bearing arms… "To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them."

- Richard Henry Lee, Federal Farmer No. 18, January 25, 1788

The Founding Fathers believed that peaceable law abiding citizens should never have their right to bear arms be infringed upon.

"And that the said Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the Press, or the rights of Conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, WHO ARE PEACEABLE CITIZENS, from keeping their own arms; …"

Samuel Adams quoted in the Philadelphia Independent Gazetteer, August 20, 1789, "Propositions submitted to the Convention of this State"

The fundamental purpose of the militia is to serve as a check upon a standing army, the words “well regulated” referred to the necessity that the armed citizens making up the militia have the level of equipment and training necessary to be an effective and formidable check upon the national government’s standing army.

"I ask who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers." - George Mason, Address to the Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 4, 1788

"Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed, as they are in almost every country in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops." - Noah Webster, An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution, October 10, 1787

"The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country." - James Madison, I Annals of Congress 434, June 8, 1789

“A militia when properly formed are in fact the people themselves…and include, according to the past and general usuage of the states, all men capable of bearing arms… "To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them." - Richard Henry Lee, Federal Farmer No. 18, January 25, 1788

Well regulated does not mean regulations. When the Constitution specifies regulations it specifically states who and what is being regulated. The phrase "well-regulated" was in common use long before 1789, and remained so for a century thereafter. It referred to the property of something being in proper working order. Something that was well-regulated was calibrated correctly, functioning as expected. The fundamental purpose of the militia was to serve as a check upon a standing army, the words “well regulated” referred to the necessity that the armed citizens making up the militia have the necessary equipment and training necessary to be an effective and formidable check upon the national government’s standing army. Establishing government oversight of the people's arms was not only not the intent in using the phrase in the 2nd amendment, it was precisely to render the government powerless to do so that the founders wrote it.

Firstly the right to bear arms doesn't give you an armed populace. That's the right to keep arms. The right to bear arms is the right to be in the militia.

i.e., the militia with citizen soldiers, that means you need people with the guns for the militia, and you need people to use the guns in the militia.

Maybe this'll help.....

 

[rightwinger]

Correct.

The Second Amendment recognizes an individual right to possess a firearm, along with the right to self-defense.

There is no Second Amendment ‘right’ to ‘overthrow’ the government, the notion is as ridiculous as it is insane.

And the right to self-defense concerns protecting oneself from criminal attack by other private persons – attempted robbery, home invasion, rape, murder, etc. – not to ‘defend’ oneself from ‘the government’ incorrectly perceived to be ‘tyrannical.’

“No Free Man shall ever be debarred the use of arms. The strongest reason for the people to retain their right to keep and bear arms is as a last resort to protect themselves against tyranny in government.”
-Thomas Jefferson

Those words never made it into the Constitution or into any law

No, but they explain the rationale behind the 2A.

If they wanted those words, they would have put them in

As it is, The Constitution makes no provisions for overthrowing the government peacefully or with force

The people need no special permission to oppose a government gone wrong. Just what do you think the whole idea of this experiment is?

And a government needs no permission to put down an armed rebellion

 

[Skull Pilot]

There are no words in the Constitution relating to the rights of civilians to overthrow government.
I'm not looking to ban or confiscate all guns. With 300 million out there, that is not going to happen

But I do believe those who stockpile guns and ammo for the day when they will take on the US Government are certifiable crazy

Correct.

The Second Amendment recognizes an individual right to possess a firearm, along with the right to self-defense.

There is no Second Amendment ‘right’ to ‘overthrow’ the government, the notion is as ridiculous as it is insane.

And the right to self-defense concerns protecting oneself from criminal attack by other private persons – attempted robbery, home invasion, rape, murder, etc. – not to ‘defend’ oneself from ‘the government’ incorrectly perceived to be ‘tyrannical.’

“No Free Man shall ever be debarred the use of arms. The strongest reason for the people to retain their right to keep and bear arms is as a last resort to protect themselves against tyranny in government.”
-Thomas Jefferson

Those words never made it into the Constitution or into any law

No, but they explain the rationale behind the 2A.

If they wanted those words, they would have put them in

As it is, The Constitution makes no provisions for overthrowing the government peacefully or with force

No but it does that the citizens have the right to be armed to protect the security of the free state.

Do you think it's impossible for the government to threaten the security of a free state?

 

[frigidweirdo]

I should have just left it earlier on. You're back to talking complete bollocks again.

No. I'm not talking bollocks again and I wasn't talking bollocks before. Your end game is banning guns. You don't care about the 2nd Amendment.

Telling people what they think is talking bollocks. You can't even read what I write, let alone understand what I'm thinking.

Tell me how you don't want to ban guns then. Prove me wrong.

Is there any point? At no time during any conversation with you have you shown the slightest interest in debate. It's like talking with a brick wall that has buttons you press and automated answers come out.

No dude, I'm done with you.

The point would have been to prove me wrong. Wasn't that a good enough reason to say you didn't want to ban guns if you really didn't want to ban guns. The problem is that I nailed it. You didn't have any other choice but to feign indignity and stomp off into the sunset. It was exactly as I called it. Checkmate.

Exactly the petty attitude I'd expect from someone whose posts are full of nonsense. Ignore list for you. I'm not dealing with such idiocy.

 

[rightwinger]

Correct.

The Second Amendment recognizes an individual right to possess a firearm, along with the right to self-defense.

There is no Second Amendment ‘right’ to ‘overthrow’ the government, the notion is as ridiculous as it is insane.

And the right to self-defense concerns protecting oneself from criminal attack by other private persons – attempted robbery, home invasion, rape, murder, etc. – not to ‘defend’ oneself from ‘the government’ incorrectly perceived to be ‘tyrannical.’

“No Free Man shall ever be debarred the use of arms. The strongest reason for the people to retain their right to keep and bear arms is as a last resort to protect themselves against tyranny in government.”
-Thomas Jefferson

Those words never made it into the Constitution or into any law

No, but they explain the rationale behind the 2A.

If they wanted those words, they would have put them in

As it is, The Constitution makes no provisions for overthrowing the government peacefully or with force

No but it does that the citizens have the right to be armed to protect the security of the free state.

Do you think it's impossible for the government to threaten the security of a free state?

In the US....yes I do

As long as you have Constitutional means to vote, speak freely, have a free press, access to the courts to address grievances

 

[Skull Pilot]

“No Free Man shall ever be debarred the use of arms. The strongest reason for the people to retain their right to keep and bear arms is as a last resort to protect themselves against tyranny in government.”
-Thomas Jefferson

Those words never made it into the Constitution or into any law

No, but they explain the rationale behind the 2A.

If they wanted those words, they would have put them in

As it is, The Constitution makes no provisions for overthrowing the government peacefully or with force

No but it does that the citizens have the right to be armed to protect the security of the free state.

Do you think it's impossible for the government to threaten the security of a free state?

In the US....yes I do

As long as you have Constitutional means to vote, speak freely, have a free press, access to the courts to address grievances

While I think it is unlikely I do not think it's impossible

One time I thought warrantless wiretaps and massive data collection on the people by the government, and other egregiousnesses were impossible but the Patriot Act put an end to that bit of naivete

 

[frigidweirdo]

Now you are splitting hairs. Same difference. Which is why we look at the statements that were made by the Founding Fathers. But hey, I'm not trying to convince you. You won't be happy until all guns are banned and confiscated.

There are no words in the Constitution relating to the rights of civilians to overthrow government.
I'm not looking to ban or confiscate all guns. With 300 million out there, that is not going to happen

But I do believe those who stockpile guns and ammo for the day when they will take on the US Government are certifiable crazy

Correct.

The Second Amendment recognizes an individual right to possess a firearm, along with the right to self-defense.

There is no Second Amendment ‘right’ to ‘overthrow’ the government, the notion is as ridiculous as it is insane.

And the right to self-defense concerns protecting oneself from criminal attack by other private persons – attempted robbery, home invasion, rape, murder, etc. – not to ‘defend’ oneself from ‘the government’ incorrectly perceived to be ‘tyrannical.’

“No Free Man shall ever be debarred the use of arms. The strongest reason for the people to retain their right to keep and bear arms is as a last resort to protect themselves against tyranny in government.”
-Thomas Jefferson

Then again you have to wonder what Jefferson would say today. I doubt he'd be of the same opinion.

Speculation. Irrelevant.

Shit post.

 

[Tennyson]

“No Free Man shall ever be debarred the use of arms. The strongest reason for the people to retain their right to keep and bear arms is as a last resort to protect themselves against tyranny in government.”
-Thomas Jefferson

Those words never made it into the Constitution or into any law

No, but they explain the rationale behind the 2A.

If they wanted those words, they would have put them in

As it is, The Constitution makes no provisions for overthrowing the government peacefully or with force

The people need no special permission to oppose a government gone wrong. Just what do you think the whole idea of this experiment is?

And a government needs no permission to put down an armed rebellion

Yes it does. There is a law and even Washington had to jump through the hoops regarding the Whiskey Rebellion and the law.

 

[ding]

Now you are splitting hairs. Same difference. Which is why we look at the statements that were made by the Founding Fathers. But hey, I'm not trying to convince you. You won't be happy until all guns are banned and confiscated.

There are no words in the Constitution relating to the rights of civilians to overthrow government.
I'm not looking to ban or confiscate all guns. With 300 million out there, that is not going to happen

But I do believe those who stockpile guns and ammo for the day when they will take on the US Government are certifiable crazy

The 2nd Amendment is intended to serve as a deterrent against a tyrannical government. You want the police and military to be the only ones who have semi automatic rifles and high capacity magazines which makes no sense at all.

I trust trained police and military with automatic rifles and high capacity magazines more than some stupid fucking kid that nobody ever liked

It's not up to you to decide.

Actually, it is

That is why I vote

Go for it.

How Difficult Is It To Amendment the Constitution?

 

[ding]

There are no words in the Constitution relating to the rights of civilians to overthrow government.
I'm not looking to ban or confiscate all guns. With 300 million out there, that is not going to happen

But I do believe those who stockpile guns and ammo for the day when they will take on the US Government are certifiable crazy

Correct.

The Second Amendment recognizes an individual right to possess a firearm, along with the right to self-defense.

There is no Second Amendment ‘right’ to ‘overthrow’ the government, the notion is as ridiculous as it is insane.

And the right to self-defense concerns protecting oneself from criminal attack by other private persons – attempted robbery, home invasion, rape, murder, etc. – not to ‘defend’ oneself from ‘the government’ incorrectly perceived to be ‘tyrannical.’

“No Free Man shall ever be debarred the use of arms. The strongest reason for the people to retain their right to keep and bear arms is as a last resort to protect themselves against tyranny in government.”
-Thomas Jefferson

Those words never made it into the Constitution or into any law

No, but they explain the rationale behind the 2A.

If they wanted those words, they would have put them in

As it is, The Constitution makes no provisions for overthrowing the government peacefully or with force

Shit post.

http://www.constitution.org/2ll/2ndschol/2rbrelev.pdf

 

[ding]

No. I'm not talking bollocks again and I wasn't talking bollocks before. Your end game is banning guns. You don't care about the 2nd Amendment.

Telling people what they think is talking bollocks. You can't even read what I write, let alone understand what I'm thinking.

Tell me how you don't want to ban guns then. Prove me wrong.

Is there any point? At no time during any conversation with you have you shown the slightest interest in debate. It's like talking with a brick wall that has buttons you press and automated answers come out.

No dude, I'm done with you.

The point would have been to prove me wrong. Wasn't that a good enough reason to say you didn't want to ban guns if you really didn't want to ban guns. The problem is that I nailed it. You didn't have any other choice but to feign indignity and stomp off into the sunset. It was exactly as I called it. Checkmate.

Exactly the petty attitude I'd expect from someone whose posts are full of nonsense. Ignore list for you. I'm not dealing with such idiocy.

And yet, you still have not proven me wrong that you want to ban guns.

 

[rightwinger]

There are no words in the Constitution relating to the rights of civilians to overthrow government.
I'm not looking to ban or confiscate all guns. With 300 million out there, that is not going to happen

But I do believe those who stockpile guns and ammo for the day when they will take on the US Government are certifiable crazy

The 2nd Amendment is intended to serve as a deterrent against a tyrannical government. You want the police and military to be the only ones who have semi automatic rifles and high capacity magazines which makes no sense at all.

I trust trained police and military with automatic rifles and high capacity magazines more than some stupid fucking kid that nobody ever liked

It's not up to you to decide.

Actually, it is

That is why I vote

Go for it.

How Difficult Is It To Amendment the Constitution?

No need to amend it

We just need liberal courts to support reasonable gun controls

 

[ding]

The 2nd Amendment is intended to serve as a deterrent against a tyrannical government. You want the police and military to be the only ones who have semi automatic rifles and high capacity magazines which makes no sense at all.

I trust trained police and military with automatic rifles and high capacity magazines more than some stupid fucking kid that nobody ever liked

It's not up to you to decide.

Actually, it is

That is why I vote

Go for it.

How Difficult Is It To Amendment the Constitution?

No need to amend it

We just need liberal courts to support reasonable gun controls

Good luck with that.

 

[Tennyson]

The 2nd Amendment is intended to serve as a deterrent against a tyrannical government. You want the police and military to be the only ones who have semi automatic rifles and high capacity magazines which makes no sense at all.

I trust trained police and military with automatic rifles and high capacity magazines more than some stupid fucking kid that nobody ever liked

It's not up to you to decide.

Actually, it is

That is why I vote

Go for it.

How Difficult Is It To Amendment the Constitution?

No need to amend it

We just need liberal courts to support reasonable gun controls

How do you define a liberal courts vis-a-vis courts that follow the intent of the Constitution and where does the rule of law play into liberal courts?

 

[rightwinger]

I trust trained police and military with automatic rifles and high capacity magazines more than some stupid fucking kid that nobody ever liked

It's not up to you to decide.

Actually, it is

That is why I vote

Go for it.

How Difficult Is It To Amendment the Constitution?

No need to amend it

We just need liberal courts to support reasonable gun controls

Good luck with that.

Thanks.....Find out tonight

 

[Vandalshandle]

I trust trained police and military with automatic rifles and high capacity magazines more than some stupid fucking kid that nobody ever liked

It's not up to you to decide.

Actually, it is

That is why I vote

Go for it.

How Difficult Is It To Amendment the Constitution?

No need to amend it

We just need liberal courts to support reasonable gun controls

How do you define a liberal courts vis-a-vis courts that follow the intent of the Constitution and where does the rule of law play into liberal courts?

A liberal court is imaginary. A conservative court has at least one vacant seat.

 

[ding]

It's not up to you to decide.

Actually, it is

That is why I vote

Go for it.

How Difficult Is It To Amendment the Constitution?

No need to amend it

We just need liberal courts to support reasonable gun controls

Good luck with that.

Thanks.....Find out tonight

I think you are going to have to wait a little longer than that.

 

[ding]

The 2nd Amendment is intended to serve as a deterrent against a tyrannical government. You want the police and military to be the only ones who have semi automatic rifles and high capacity magazines which makes no sense at all.

I trust trained police and military with automatic rifles and high capacity magazines more than some stupid fucking kid that nobody ever liked

It's not up to you to decide.

Actually, it is

That is why I vote

Go for it.

How Difficult Is It To Amendment the Constitution?

No need to amend it

We just need liberal courts to support reasonable gun controls

What was that you were saying, lol?

 

[Boss]

I thought federalism was in support of a strong centralized govt and
the antifederalist was in support of keeping power on the level of states and people,
and not ceding this to federal authority. I thought the big fear of a central Constitution
was it would not be strong enough to check that tendency for the greater collective
power to start oppressing the local citizens and state sovereignty all over again.

You are sort of right and sort of confused at the same time. When we were debating Federalism vs. Anti-federalism, the arguments were BOTH opposed to a central federal power over everyone. Federalists argued that we could have a very limited small federal government which left most of our liberty to be determined by the states and people respectively. Anti-federalists feared exactly what has happened in history, that even a small federal government, limited in power, would eventually become a large centralized power enforcing it's will on society.

Today, we have a different argument. The Federalists are still arguing for a small and limited federal authority where states and people decide most of their own parameters of liberty and we have Statists who believe in a large central authority. Ironically, even though Anti-federalists no longer exist, their arguments proved to be true... we simply couldn't maintain a small limited government over time because the nature of any government is to grow in power over the individual.

So Boss now there are three groups
1. Statists are the ones who WANT the power to grow on the federal level and even fight against enforcing limits on it
2. Federalists who argue we can manage a centralized govt are split between the "new anti-federalists" who still believe in the Constitution but fear the whole thing needs to be shut down and stopped vs. the Constitutonalists saying we can use the given system and restore the limitations (and the Statists saying we can keep the given system and don't need to enforce limitations)
3. anarchists and independents who don't believe in parties or Constitutional laws at all as being able to stop abuses

I think the Statists have taken over the position of anti-federalists
in being opposed to the Constitution as limited govt, but for the opposite reason.
Before, the anti-federalists didn't think it was strong enough to PREVENT big govt from dominating over individuals.
Today, the Statists don't want the Constitutional limits as "obstruction" to get in the way of this.

So the term you use for people who want central govt as the default authority
in charge of public programs and policies is STATIST. Is that correct?

That's correct but they are not taking anything near an anti-federalist position. Their position is exactly what made an anti-federalist an anti-federalist. They were opposed to a central federal government, even in a small limited role. They sought to have us remain a confederation of states without a federal government. The Federalists made the case that a Constitution would limit and restrict the powers of Federal government and rejected the idea that it would grow out of control because they though the people would prevent it.

It's confusing today because many of the anti-federalist complaints have become the concerns of the modern federalists. Again, both Federalists and Anti-Federalists opposed a large centralized Federal government.

Can todays Feneralists and antifederalists rise up against the Statists? Why not demand the Statists set up their own programs and not impose through govt on others.

Which Party leaders would have to agree to such a resolution or demand to make it heard? Who do recommend, or what form of petition should the people present? Boss

I think you see the true Federalists standing strong with Constitutional Conservatives. It's reflected in who we are electing to Congress.

I don't understand your question with regard to the Statists... do you understand that a Statist seeks to use the power of government to impose it's programs and control on others? So your question is, why not demand Statists not be Statists? I think that's a great idea.

 

[emilynghiem]

I thought federalism was in support of a strong centralized govt and
the antifederalist was in support of keeping power on the level of states and people,
and not ceding this to federal authority. I thought the big fear of a central Constitution
was it would not be strong enough to check that tendency for the greater collective
power to start oppressing the local citizens and state sovereignty all over again.

You are sort of right and sort of confused at the same time. When we were debating Federalism vs. Anti-federalism, the arguments were BOTH opposed to a central federal power over everyone. Federalists argued that we could have a very limited small federal government which left most of our liberty to be determined by the states and people respectively. Anti-federalists feared exactly what has happened in history, that even a small federal government, limited in power, would eventually become a large centralized power enforcing it's will on society.

Today, we have a different argument. The Federalists are still arguing for a small and limited federal authority where states and people decide most of their own parameters of liberty and we have Statists who believe in a large central authority. Ironically, even though Anti-federalists no longer exist, their arguments proved to be true... we simply couldn't maintain a small limited government over time because the nature of any government is to grow in power over the individual.

So Boss now there are three groups
1. Statists are the ones who WANT the power to grow on the federal level and even fight against enforcing limits on it
2. Federalists who argue we can manage a centralized govt are split between the "new anti-federalists" who still believe in the Constitution but fear the whole thing needs to be shut down and stopped vs. the Constitutonalists saying we can use the given system and restore the limitations (and the Statists saying we can keep the given system and don't need to enforce limitations)
3. anarchists and independents who don't believe in parties or Constitutional laws at all as being able to stop abuses

I think the Statists have taken over the position of anti-federalists
in being opposed to the Constitution as limited govt, but for the opposite reason.
Before, the anti-federalists didn't think it was strong enough to PREVENT big govt from dominating over individuals.
Today, the Statists don't want the Constitutional limits as "obstruction" to get in the way of this.

So the term you use for people who want central govt as the default authority
in charge of public programs and policies is STATIST. Is that correct?

That's correct but they are not taking anything near an anti-federalist position. Their position is exactly what made an anti-federalist an anti-federalist. They were opposed to a central federal government, even in a small limited role. They sought to have us remain a confederation of states without a federal government. The Federalists made the case that a Constitution would limit and restrict the powers of Federal government and rejected the idea that it would grow out of control because they though the people would prevent it.

It's confusing today because many of the anti-federalist complaints have become the concerns of the modern federalists. Again, both Federalists and Anti-Federalists opposed a large centralized Federal government.

Can todays Feneralists and antifederalists rise up against the Statists? Why not demand the Statists set up their own programs and not impose through govt on others.

Which Party leaders would have to agree to such a resolution or demand to make it heard? Who do recommend, or what form of petition should the people present? Boss

I think you see the true Federalists standing strong with Constitutional Conservatives. It's reflected in who we are electing to Congress.

I don't understand your question with regard to the Statists... do you understand that a Statist seeks to use the power of government to impose it's programs and control on others? So your question is, why not demand Statists not be Statists? I think that's a great idea.

Well Boss if we set it up right, they will still act as Statists for themselves within their own govt structure. Just not for anyone else who doesn't freely chose that affiliation. We can call it a model or internal govt run by Parliament of each party. Each party can claim sovereignty of their own realm over their own membership. So if health care or social benefits are set up to be self sustaining, it should work whether there are 1 million members or 10 million in the pool. Let them figure it out how to make the numbers and budget work on a smaller local scale, before expanding on a higher or national scale. So they can have collective will established for all members through central govt, but organize this by party so they can agree on political beliefs that otherwise divide states. With like minded members of one party belief, they can mandate all they want and it only applies to them who already agree on and believe in the same policies.