Where is it written that 2nd Amend is to keep Govt. in Check?

[regent]

A few years after the consitution was ratified the government put an excise tax on whiskey. The growers of the whiskey ingredients considered the tax tyrannical so they got their guns, second amendment rights, and got ready to defend those rights against the government.
George Washington called out the militia and led the militia to put down the uprising. Now both militia and whiskey growers were armed with muskets, no tanks, no airplanes nothing but muskets, but the Whiskey Rebellion ended almost immediately.
How many rebellions against our tyrannical government have been successsful?

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

Wingnuts keep saying the Second Amendment is to keep the government in check.

Where is this written in the Constitution?

Its not.

 

[martybegan]

I never said anything close to this.

I said that the notion that you have a Constitutionally protected right to bear arms in order to wage war on the United States is a fruity notion. You can try to spin it into something else - which just proves that you cannot defend the notion itself. The notion is so fruity on its face that you have to try to spin it into something else to defend it.

To me if it comes down to the citizens having to take arms against the government, we are not dealing with the government of the U.S. as we it today but something warped and twitsted. You may think that our current political setup is static, but history tells otherwise. I am sure there are plenty of Romans who never thought Rome would be sacked, Or byzantines who thought constantinople was a permanent fixture. They were wrong.

Why is being able to resist tyranny even slightly effectively such a fruity notion?

Some people believe that the U.S. Government as we know it today is worth warring against. Timothy McVeigh did. How'd that work out for him? Did the courts uphold HIS Constitutional right to wage war on the U.S. government?

Do you really believe that SCOTUS is going to interpret and uphold a "right" to wage war on the U.S."? You must be delusional.

If people are to wage war on the U.S. they can expect absolutely no help from the U.S. They will have to hold their weapons in secret and they will be hunted like dogs. If you think that's gonna make you some great defender of liberty or something - fine. Knock yourself out.

But if you think the U.S. courts are going to protect you in any way - you are absolutely delusional.

That was two guys. Keep going on with the gradual restrictiction of 2nd amendment rights, and it will be far more who are forced across the line. At that point you would have to assume that a large portion of the population no longer gives consent to be governed to the government.


McVeigh was a nutjob. The people who wish to defend thier 2nd amendment rights from people who want to take them are far less so, and include numerous members of law enforcement.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

It's not a long amendment so lets break it down in the language of the day. "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."

The militia are not regular military but instead are citizens free to pursue their usual occupations yet when called upon for defense they gather their arms and answer the call. Pay attention to the fact the founders were referring to the militia of a country. Those who insisted this be an amendment to the Constitution understood a state to be, as the 1828 dictionary and other historical documents of the day support, an independent nation. The 2nd Amendment was in place to remind the newly formed federal or general government each state's citizenry would be armed and ready to defend themselves should the need arise.

So then, the 2nd amendment would be fulfilled if the militia's firearms were stored at an armory, under lock and key and 24/7 armed guard, ready to be dispersed to the militia if needed to secure our free state, or for their use on common militia grounds in training exercises.

Yes/No ?

 

[Contumacious]

Wingnuts keep saying the Second Amendment is to keep the government in check.

Where is this written in the Constitution?

Amazing , that is the exact question King George asked the colonists as they were telling him" Bollocks, go fuck yourself".

.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

Wingnuts keep saying the Second Amendment is to keep the government in check.

Where is this written in the Constitution?

Amazing , that is the exact question King George asked the colonists as they were telling him" Bollocks, go fuck yourself".

.

No it isn't.

 

[Mustang]

Wingnuts keep saying the Second Amendment is to keep the government in check.

Where is this written in the Constitution?

You mean you don't understand the conservative argument that America's constitutionally established well-regulated militia (well-regulated BY the government in case anyone was wondering) was specifically established to overthrow the gov't if that's what the members of the well-regulated militia decided to do?

 

[regent]

Wingnuts keep saying the Second Amendment is to keep the government in check.

Where is this written in the Constitution?

Amazing , that is the exact question King George asked the colonists as they were telling him" Bollocks, go fuck yourself".

.

I thought the Revolutionary War was over before they wrote the Constitution, and even later added the Bill of Rights?

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

Wingnuts keep saying the Second Amendment is to keep the government in check.

Where is this written in the Constitution?

Amazing , that is the exact question King George asked the colonists as they were telling him" Bollocks, go fuck yourself".

.

I thought the Revolutionary War was over before they wrote the Constitution, and even later added the Bill of Rights?

Wow look - a USMB poster knows history.

 

[martybegan]

It's not a long amendment so lets break it down in the language of the day. "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."

The militia are not regular military but instead are citizens free to pursue their usual occupations yet when called upon for defense they gather their arms and answer the call. Pay attention to the fact the founders were referring to the militia of a country. Those who insisted this be an amendment to the Constitution understood a state to be, as the 1828 dictionary and other historical documents of the day support, an independent nation. The 2nd Amendment was in place to remind the newly formed federal or general government each state's citizenry would be armed and ready to defend themselves should the need arise.

So then, the 2nd amendment would be fulfilled if the militia's firearms were stored at an armory, under lock and key and 24/7 armed guard, ready to be dispersed to the militia if needed to secure our free state, or for their use on common militia grounds in training exercises.

Yes/No ?

No, again its the right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms, not the right of the milita to keep and bear arms.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

It's not a long amendment so lets break it down in the language of the day. "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."

The militia are not regular military but instead are citizens free to pursue their usual occupations yet when called upon for defense they gather their arms and answer the call. Pay attention to the fact the founders were referring to the militia of a country. Those who insisted this be an amendment to the Constitution understood a state to be, as the 1828 dictionary and other historical documents of the day support, an independent nation. The 2nd Amendment was in place to remind the newly formed federal or general government each state's citizenry would be armed and ready to defend themselves should the need arise.

So then, the 2nd amendment would be fulfilled if the militia's firearms were stored at an armory, under lock and key and 24/7 armed guard, ready to be dispersed to the militia if needed to secure our free state, or for their use on common militia grounds in training exercises.

Yes/No ?

No, again its the right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms, not the right of the milita to keep and bear arms.

So what's the well regulated militia doing in the 2nd amendment? Just there for show?

 

[regent]

The militia became the National Guard in 1933.

 

[eflatminor]

So what's the well regulated militia doing in the 2nd amendment? Just there for show?

We have the right to form a militia. We also have the right to bear arms. Not that complicated.

The first amendment speaks to religion, speech, the press, assembly, and the right to petition. Some of those points just for show?

 

[martybegan]

So then, the 2nd amendment would be fulfilled if the militia's firearms were stored at an armory, under lock and key and 24/7 armed guard, ready to be dispersed to the militia if needed to secure our free state, or for their use on common militia grounds in training exercises.

Yes/No ?

No, again its the right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms, not the right of the milita to keep and bear arms.

So what's the well regulated militia doing in the 2nd amendment? Just there for show?

That if the state wants to call the people into the milita, it needs to do so in a regulated manner, i.e. officers, reasons, and overall goals. The milita was not to be called for spurrious reasons. However the people retained the right to be arm so they could ably serve in the milita if needed.

its not the fault of the people that the states have not mustered the unorganzied milita in recent time.

 

[martybegan]

The militia became the National Guard in 1933.

For that to work anyone would have to be able to be in the guard, and they could not require a time commitment unless in time of war, similar to what happened in the civil war when the militas were called up for a certain period of service.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Wingnuts keep saying the Second Amendment is to keep the government in check.

Where is this written in the Constitution?

It’s not.

The Second Amendment protects an individual, not collective, right, unconnected with militia service.

Extreme rightwing partisans, of course, want to have it both ways: they want an individual right and a collective right to foster pathetic fantasies of making war on the Federal Constitution and government.

 

[asterism]

The militia became the National Guard in 1933.

For that to work anyone would have to be able to be in the guard, and they could not require a time commitment unless in time of war, similar to what happened in the civil war when the militas were called up for a certain period of service.

They would also have to be independent, not federalized.

 

[Charles_Main]

Wingnuts keep saying the Second Amendment is to keep the government in check.

Where is this written in the Constitution?

It does not specify why we have the right in the document. However the people who wrote and signed the document have other writings, and words that show us that, defense against tyranny was the main reason for the 2nd.

 

[regent]

The militia became the National Guard in 1933.

For that to work anyone would have to be able to be in the guard, and they could not require a time commitment unless in time of war, similar to what happened in the civil war when the militas were called up for a certain period of service.

They would also have to be independent, not federalized.

The guard is under the states unless federalized by the president. Check it out, including the militia act of, as I remember, 1903.

 

[Contumacious]

Wingnuts keep saying the Second Amendment is to keep the government in check.

Where is this written in the Constitution?

Amazing , that is the exact question King George asked the colonists as they were telling him" Bollocks, go fuck yourself".

.

I thought the Revolutionary War was over before they wrote the Constitution, and even later added the Bill of Rights?

The right to life, liberty and to pursue happiness is an unalienable right which does not depend on the Constitution.

The stupid op who began the thread forgot that people have an inherent right to crush tyranny.

"That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. "

.