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

[Paulie]

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

Where is this written in the Constitution?

Where is it written that the general welfare clause is to be used for anything anyone considers to be for the welfare of the public?

Like anything else in the constitution, it's interpreted via the dialogue the framers were having at the time.

 

[eflatminor]

I respect your right to your opinion - but I find it very difficult to respect such a fruity notion.

So the notion that rights flow up from the individual, with restrictions on the government of whatever level on how to deal with those rights is fruity?

What is fruity is the notion that rights flow DOWN from the government and are granted to individuals.

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.

No matter what you consider the notion, we have the inalienable right to defend ourselves against tyranny from any source.

 

[tjvh]

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Those who insisted this be an amendment to the Constitution understood a state to be, as the 1828 dictionary and other historical documents of the day support, an independent nation.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.

The founding fathers did not envision the need for a standing Army at the time. They envisioned local and state militias being called up to defend the nation when needed

Having no money to arm militias, they depended on each militaiman to provide his own arms

The U.S. Army was formed in 1785 directly out of the Continental Army... So I guess your theory doesn't hold water. Do you ever tire of making stuff up to fit your talking points all of the time?

 

[MarcATL]

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

Where is this written in the Constitution?

Oh datz eezee....nowhere.

 

[MarcATL]

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

Where is this written in the Constitution?

Wayne Lapierre wrote it in his book.

And Timothy McVeigh used to hand out pamphlets promoting that notion.

"Pamphlet"

That's such a funny word.

 

[g5000]

The topic title asks where it is written. More than enough written evidence has been provided.

The OP attempts to narrow the goalposts by asking a question that basically implies the Constitution would have to be thousands of pages long to satisfy the ignoramuses who ask "show me in the Constitution" questions because they are too dense to understand the implied rights and powers in that document. They need everything spelled out for them.

Well, it is spelled out for you. You have been shown where.

Deal with it.

 

[nodoginnafight]

So the notion that rights flow up from the individual, with restrictions on the government of whatever level on how to deal with those rights is fruity?

What is fruity is the notion that rights flow DOWN from the government and are granted to individuals.

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.

 

[Paulie]

The topic title asks where it is written. More than enough written evidence has been provided.

The OP attempts to narrow the goalposts by asking a question that basically implies the Constitution would have to be thousands of pages long to satisfy the ignoramuses who ask "show me in the Constitution" questions.

We can't ask the framers but we can read the plethora of their writings and get a pretty accurate idea of what they were intending.

 

[ZimothyTahn]

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

Where is this written in the Constitution?

It's written on the heart of every patriot. Oh, wait. some have no heart. Would that be you.

so in other words you know you can't answer that question so you did the typical bagger move and questioned his patriotism. smooth move, mrs. mccarthy. are you now, and will you always be a dumb *****?

'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.'

doesn't look like 'in case the feds come and try to take your guns away (which they can't because of this very amendment you dumb bagger *****), you can have whatever ******* guns you want.'

the second amendment was meant more as a protection against an invasion from another country than anything else. why? well, you'd have to be an un-bagger and actually read real history, not what conservative dumbfucks write what they think history was.

the framers were terribly afraid of another attack from great britain. they were still the strongest military force on the planet at the time, their navy was amazeballs. and when they were occupying us one of the first things they did was round up our guns and powder. so the founders made sure that it could never happen again.

sure, if you're a paranoid delusional **** you'll take that to mean as protection against hte federal government. but all you have to possess is an iq high enough to tie your shoes (sorry uncensored2008 and ladyshitslinger, this leaves you out, here's some candy and some beef jerky, go play on the slides and try not to shit yourself), to understand that the very existence of the amendment means the feds can't take your guns. the second amendment is protection against invasion, not tyranny of our own government.

the founders, perhaps in a bit of naivete of their own, likely assumed the systems of checks, balances, and impeachment would be enough for the voters to not worry about a dictator in the president's chair. as they're wont to do, conservatives have re-written history to warp the second amendment to encompass far, far more than it ever was meant to.

even the bagger patron saint of the high court scalia said it's perfectly okay (e.g. constitutional) for there to be laws and regulations on guns. so ummm. yeah. suck it.

 

[Spoonman]

The topic title asks where it is written. More than enough written evidence has been provided.

The OP attempts to narrow the goalposts by asking a question that basically implies the Constitution would have to be thousands of pages long to satisfy the ignoramuses who ask "show me in the Constitution" questions because they are too dense to understand the implied rights and powers in that document. They need everything spelled out for them.

Well, it is spelled out for you. You have been shown where.

Deal with it.

good point, you read comments made by most of the authors of the constitution they are very clear in their intent. for example "No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms. The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government"

-- Thomas Jefferson, 1 Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

 

[Missourian]

It's written right next to "the wall of separation between church and state" and "Judicial Review".

 

[asterism]

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms. The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government"

-- Thomas Jefferson, 1 Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

"...to disarm the people - that was the best and most effectual way to enslave them."

-- George Mason


Those took me about a minute to find.

If these were such important sentiments, shared by the founders, why are they not included in the Constitution?

I shouldn't have to read Jefferson's private papers to learn his feelings. On page 334, no less.

What's your basis to support collective bargaining, privacy and abortion again?

 

[nodoginnafight]

The topic title asks where it is written. More than enough written evidence has been provided.

The OP attempts to narrow the goalposts by asking a question that basically implies the Constitution would have to be thousands of pages long to satisfy the ignoramuses who ask "show me in the Constitution" questions because they are too dense to understand the implied rights and powers in that document. They need everything spelled out for them.

Well, it is spelled out for you. You have been shown where.

Deal with it.

Respectfully:
No one has presented a shred of justification for this "implied right" to wage war on the government of the U.S.
In fact the scribblings presented prove exactly the opposite. Of course our founding fathers mused on their "right" to wage the war they fought against the English Crown. So these notions were out there and a deliberate decision was obviously made to EXCLUDE them from our Constitution. In fact, their writings also made it abundantly clear that they knew what the consequences would be if their revolution failed.

This idea that the U.S. is Constitutionally bound to protect you if you decide to wage war on the U.S. (or to protect you in your preparations for such a war) is absurd. And unfortunately it is symptomatic of a rampant disease in our nation today. The notion that people should be able to take a "brave" stand on principles without risking any consequences - that bravery is not required to take a brave stand - is delusional rot.

You want to "stand up" against tyranny in the form of an oppressive U.S. Government? Go for it. But if you think everyone else is Constitutionally bound to help you - you are crazy. It ain't gonna happen - and it SHOULDN'T happen.

 

[Ravi]

given the purpose of a militia is to protect america against foriegn invaders, i'm guessing no

That's how the war was sold to us: to protect America from invading terrorists.

and we have a military to fight those battles for us. now the militia would probably gladly get involved if the government would remove these ridiculous bans and allow citizens their true constitutional rights to own arms, any arms, the same as the military. you can't be sending troops off to fight with inferior technology and limited capacity. terrorists and rogue nations don't abide by our ridiculous gun laws

You've wondered far away from my original question so nevermind.

 

[eflatminor]

You want to "stand up" against tyranny in the form of an oppressive U.S. Government?

You don't? Just how much of a nanny state suck up are you?

But if you think everyone else is Constitutionally bound to help you - you are crazy.

No, "everyone" is not bound to help. But we are bound by the right to keep and bear arms in order to defend against tyranny, from wherever it emanates. Deal with it.

 

[nodoginnafight]

You want to "stand up" against tyranny in the form of an oppressive U.S. Government?

You don't? Just how much of a nanny state suck up are you?

But if you think everyone else is Constitutionally bound to help you - you are crazy.

No, "everyone" is not bound to help. But we are bound by the right to keep and bear arms in order to defend against tyranny, from wherever it emanates. Deal with it.

You can claim any "right" you want to. But just because you claim it, that doesn't mean anyone else is bound to protect that "right" for you. If you feel you have the right and that you are in the right, then fine. Do what you feel is right. And everyone else is going to do what THEY think is right.

And I'm just telling - there aren't very many people at all who read a "right to wage war against the U.S." in the U.S. Constitution. And there are a whole lot of people who are going to be shooting back at you. And if they capture you and put you on trial, NO ONE is going to say "Oh well ... he was just exercising his Constitutional rights. Off you go there patriot ...."

And if you think the U.S. is going to protect your right to wage this war or to prepare for this war - you are absolutely crazy.

If you aren't prepared to deal with THAT reality - you might as well surrender your weapons right now.

 

[eflatminor]

You want to "stand up" against tyranny in the form of an oppressive U.S. Government?

You don't? Just how much of a nanny state suck up are you?

But if you think everyone else is Constitutionally bound to help you - you are crazy.

No, "everyone" is not bound to help. But we are bound by the right to keep and bear arms in order to defend against tyranny, from wherever it emanates. Deal with it.

You can claim any "right" you want to. But just because you claim it, that doesn't mean anyone else is bound to protect that "right" for you. If you feel you have the right and that you are in the right, then fine. Do what you feel is right. And everyone else is going to do what THEY think is right.

As long as what I feel is my right doesn't impinge on what you believe are your rights, we're fine. Restricting my ability to defend myself with a firearm is most definitely impinging on my rights, just as it is if I shoot you with one of those firearms.

You're free to maintain the right to cower in the corner of a gun free zone and hope someone saves your ass. I choose differently.

And I'm just telling - there aren't very many people at all who read a "right to wage war against the U.S." in the U.S. Constitution.

That's because it's a right to bear arms against tyranny, wherever it emanates. Waging war is one country against another. That's not what we're talking about nor what is enshrined in the Constitution. Congress gets to declare war. The people get to ensure our right to self defense. Everyone knows this so please, stop being so damn obtuse.

And there are a whole lot of people who are going to be shooting back at you. And if they capture you and put you on trial, NO ONE is going to say "Oh well ... he was just exercising his Constitutional rights. Off you go there patriot ...."

That would depend on a lot of things, wouldn't it?

...you might as well surrender your weapons right now

Never going to happen.

 

[Contumacious]

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

Amazing, that is exactly what King George asked James Madison, Patrick Henry , Thomas Jefferson, et al.

I am sure that if you take your time you will find their response.


.The fucktards never cease to amaze me.

 

[nodoginnafight]

As long as what I feel is my right doesn't impinge on what you believe are your rights, we're fine. Restricting my ability to defend myself with a firearm is most definitely impinging on my rights, just as it is if I shoot you with one of those firearms.

If Congress passes a law, the President signs the law, and SCOTUS reviews and upholds the law - then it's the law. No matter what you may think it infringes upon. Period.

And you can try to be insulting by suggesting "cowering in a gun-free zone", all you want. I don't play the "my dick is bigger than yours" game. I outgrew it a long time ago. My hope is that you will outgrow it someday too and I also hope you outgrow this juvenile notion of your "heroic war against tyranny" (that you insist should bear no risk).

I support people's rights to own guns. Not so that they can wage war against the U.S. government. If things should slide a long way from where they are now - who knows, I might join in the fight as well. But I'm not fooling myself into thinking the Constitution is going to help me. It's not even thick enough to stop a bullet.

 

[eflatminor]

As long as what I feel is my right doesn't impinge on what you believe are your rights, we're fine. Restricting my ability to defend myself with a firearm is most definitely impinging on my rights, just as it is if I shoot you with one of those firearms.

If Congress passes a law, the President signs the law, and SCOTUS reviews and upholds the law - then it's the law. No matter what you may think it infringes upon. Period.

Get thee a dictionary

Nullification - the action of a state impeding or attempting to prevent the operation and enforcement within its territory of a law of the United States.

The rest of your post was whining bullshit.