Second Amendment

[Dr. Dalek]

I once sugested to my old history teacher that the purpose of the "right to bear arms" wasn't neccisarily to defend people from great Britan or to organise Malitas for national defence, but had a third meaning that tends to be ignored.

The third purpose for the "right to bear arms" was a result of the forefaters considering the possibility that in the future their government may become corrupt and if it was neccisary the citizens (who have weapons at there disposal) could rebel much the same way as the forfathers rebeled against Britan.

My history teacher found this very concept of having toi rebel against the United States Governement ludicris, but it seems obvious to me that it could one day be necisary.

[Sisyphus]

As far as I know, the second amendment, like the rest of the original Bill of Rights, was born out of resentment towards British treatment of the colonies, and a desire to guarantee that the new federal government would be unable to carry out similar abuses.

 

Specifically, when the colonial authorities started to fear rebellion, they tried to disarm the local militias which would be the principal threat should it come to violence. Not an unreasonable idea, IMO, but it showed an unacceptable level of disrespect which basically compounded with the other offenses of mercantilism. We Americans weren't allowed to manufacture our own goods, have our own independent press, and lot of other rights. Then the crown wanted to take away our ability to even provide for own defense, which led to a little incident in Massachusetts...

 

So, in short, I think you are partially right, but only partially. A federal government which takes away its citizens' right to independently organize to defend themselves is a government which fears its people, and a government with reason to fear its people has no right existing. But I don't think it was a decision based on "eventually we'll have to rebel against our own government of the people," but rather, it is one way of ensuring that it always is of the people.

[mr d]

Hello

 

In a way your right in away. The second amendent deals with arming of state militia, as back then there was disagreement as to whether or not their should be a strong Federal goverment. And whether that goverment should have an army at it's disposal.

 

Also back then there was no huge tax system to provide income to finance an standing Army.

 

As first invisioned the Federal Goverment would have at it's disposal a small military force to help defend the nation and provide security in a time of peace.

 

But it was expected that citizens would be required to form State Militias that could be called up in times of war to form the United States Military. Kinda didn't trust a large Central Goverment with a huge military at its disposal. This also influenced the 3rd Admendment, which shows how the past billeting of troops by the British didn't set too well with people.

 

And this is pretty much how it was until the Civil War, where you see battles fought by say names sort of like the 10th Illinois Volunteers, or Pennsylvnia 8th Regiment.

 

A number of eastern states had requirements as to type of arms, and amount of powder and shot each man was expected to supply for his militia duty. Even clothing and uniforms were also required by some, while the state would use a portion of its own money to provide for larger purchases such as cannon or a small ship for harbor patrol.

 

After the War it was decided a strong Federal Army was needed, with less State power allowed. Both to hold the Nation together, and it was decided such a system of Militias made the U.S. more vunerable to powerful outside nations that did have standing armies.

 

The idea itself is derived from the early Roman Republic concept of a citizen army.

 

But you are also right in a way that certain people who helped draft the Constitution believed ultimate power should be held in the hands of the populous. Such as Thomas Jefferson who believed that goverment needed change by revolution, peaceful or non, to be keep fresh and viable.

 

Mr D

[iglak]

"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."

 

"a well regulated Militia" very simply refers to intelligently armed citizens. meaning that what we have right now - people owning guns to give them some comfort from their fears - is not well regulated in any sense. well regulated is what the responsible gun shop owner does when he sells a revolver to people who are new to guns, telling them to get used to it before buying a modern gun. well regulated is what hunters do. well regulated is what people do at the shooting range.

 

"being necessary to the security of a free state" very simply refers to the ability of a well regulated Militia to secure a free state, and all of the freedoms and states that come with it.

Militias don't wrk with the government unless they want to. a Militia can either help the government or fight against it, by definition. a well regulated militia has the ability to fight against injustices in order to secure their free state, whether the injustices be from the government or from an invading force.

withough well regulation, a Militia will not easily form in the first place, because the people holding the guns will not have the intelligence to band together to secure their freedoms. exampled by today's culture: theree's simply too much fear to make intelligent decisions. in addition, without well regulation, any Militia that does form will not be inclined to secure their free state, but will instead fight to get rid of anything that they're afraid of.

 

"the right of the people to keep and bear Arms"

"shall not be infringed"

these two don't need any explanation.

 

 

 

the second amendment gives the people the ability to form a Militia to keep the security of a free state, against anything that wishes to take that free state away. this includes forming a Militia to initiate a civil war, as well as forming a militia to protect a state when the Armies can't.

 

 

 

i'd also like to point out that the NRA is actually destructive towards Arm freedoms. the NRA makes compromises. as a result, we now have 50% of our Arm freedoms, as opposed to the 100% we started with.

 

 

 

--Quotes--

 

 

"Any people anywhere, being inclined and having the power, have the right to rise up, and shake off the existing government, and form a new one that suits them better. This is a most valuable - a most sacred right - a right, which we hope and believe, is to liberate the world."

 

"Our safety, our liberty, depends upon preserving the Constitution of the United States as our fathers made it inviolate. The people of the United States are the rightful masters of both Congress and the courts, not to overthrow the Constitution, but to overthrow the men who pervert the Constitution."

 

"This country, with its institutions, belongs to the people who inhabit it. Whenever they shall grow weary of the existing government, they can exercise their constitutional right of amending it, or exercise their revolutionary right to overthrow it."

 

-Abraham Lincoln

 

 

 

"If we want freedom, there should be an armed rebellion every 20 years."

 

"what country can perserve it's liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people perserve the spirit of resistance. Let them take arms. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is it's natural manuer."

 

-Thomas Jefferson

 

 

 

"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."

 

-Benjamin Fraklin

 

 

 

"To announce that there must be no criticism of the president... is morally treasonable to the American public."

 

"We need the iron qualities that go with true manhood. We need the positive virtues of resolution, of courage, of indomitable will, of power to do without shrinking the rough work that must always be done."

 

-Theodore Roosevelt

[Dr. Dalek]

"If we want freedom, there should be an armed rebellion every 20 years."

I like that quote,

[Sisyphus]

Yeah, sub-Saharan Africa is certainly the most free region on Earth.

[john5746]

Yeah, I don't think Jefferson was ever on the front lines getting shot at. As long as you have a democracy, I don't see the need for the population to have arms. If we need arms to scare the government, then we need some nukes.

[Sisyphus]

"If we want freedom, there should be a nuclear civil war every 20 years."

 

Hmmm. Maybe replace "freedom" with "Godzilla."

[bascule]

I'm certainly for gun rights. I don't care what the founding fathers thought about the situation. I'm much more concerned about the present.

 

Britain has banned all "offensive weapons". The result has been an increase in violent crime and burglary. Criminals are no longer afraid that the general population is armed, and subsequently the deterrent effect of that fear has been removed. Things like "happy slapping", where youth gangs engage in unprovoked assaults of random people, have become popular in recent years.

[swansont]

For some insight perhaps you (and your teacher) should read Federalist #46. http://www.constitution.org/fed/federa46.htm

[Severian]

No matter what the wording, I think the US should enforce the sentiment of the constitution. And it is clear that the writers of the amendment intended for ordinary folk to be allowed to carry muskets. So I think all US citizens should be allowed to carry muskets, and gunpowder based pistols.

 

 

Britain has banned all "offensive weapons". The result has been an increase in violent crime and burglary. Criminals are no longer afraid that the general population is armed, and subsequently the deterrent effect of that fear has been removed. Things like "happy slapping", where youth gangs engage in unprovoked assaults of random people, have become popular in recent years.

 

Can you provide evidence that this has anything to do with the banning of offensive weapons?

[Aardvark]

We Americans weren't allowed to manufacture our own goods,

 

Not true.

 

have our own independent press,

 

Not true

 

and lot of other rights.

 

Such as?

 

 

Then the crown wanted to take away our ability to even provide for own defense, which led to a little incident in Massachusetts...

 

Actually, that was about tax, not gun control.

 

I don't want to refight the war of independence, but lets keep the facts straight and not just regurgitate myths and distortions.

[Dak]

I'm certainly for gun rights. I don't care what the founding fathers thought about the situation. I'm much more concerned about the present.

 

Britain has banned all "offensive weapons". The result has been an increase in violent crime and burglary. Criminals are no longer afraid that the general population is armed, and subsequently the deterrent effect of that fear has been removed. Things like "happy slapping", where youth gangs engage in unprovoked assaults of random people, have become popular in recent years.

 

not entirely true. for a start, 'offensive weapons' arent banned -- pistols are banned, and carrying an 'offensive weapon' with intent to use is illegal, but they can still be owned (with, i believe, the exception of catch-release, spring-powered flick-knives). in my house, for example, i (legally) have all kinds of out-right, or can-be-pressed-into-being, offensive weapons (kitchen-knives, a sword, nunchucks, baseball bat etc, tools such as hammers. also a bow)

 

what the (mainly unarmend, i'd hasten to add -- or, if armend, usually armed only with knives) criminals are unaffraid of is legal repercussions; the at least semi-valid perseption that they can beat people up for no reason and more-or-less get away with it is what causes them to act with impunity, and stems from the belief that they probably wont get reported, if they do they probably wont get caught, and if they do that they wont, due to prison overcrowding and wussy enforsement of laws, end up in jail (or at least not for too long).

 

happy slapping is overblown by the media, and doesn't happen that much. random townies (wot u lookin at? *punch*) are more of a problem.

 

as a matter of possible interest, the situation that severian described is currently, i think, the case in the uk: shot-and-powder pistols and rifles aren't illegal (dont count as 'guns' by the wording of the law), tho your obviously not allowed to walk around town with an arquebus, and several flintlock pistols strapped to you ala blackbeard (carrying an offensive weapon with intent to use).

 

-----

 

as for the right to bear arms, i think this was much more relevent in frontier america than it is nowadays. if you couldnt rely on a state forse comming to your timely protection, then you had to protect yourself: the right to own guns to allow yourself to do so could not be taken away by the state.

 

the only place where this is still relevent in america is in the farms/countryside, which are often outside of the effective response area of the police. other than that, certainly no american living in a city needs a gun to protect him/herself.

 

afaik, the right to bear arms also didnt mean the right to bear whatever gun you wanted in whatever manner. some places illegalised pistols (cos they could be consealed) and only allowed rifles/muskets; other places allowed the civilians to own guns, but, iirc, locked them up in a town armory, only allowing the civillians access to them in times of bandit raids.

 

a far cry from criminals being allowed to walk around with semi-automatic pistols, normal civvies consealing pistols in their handbags, and some people owning assault rifles and even anti-aircraft guns

[Sisyphus]

 

I don't want to refight the war of independence, but lets keep the facts straight and not just regurgitate myths and distortions.

 

Those facts are right. Under mercantilist philosophy, of which Britain at the time was the prime example, colonies exist partly for the economic benefit of the mother country, to increase the export/import ratio. As such, the idea was to import raw materials from the colony, and export manufactured goods to it.

 

Naturally there was press, but it was also heavy-handedly regulated. "Independent" is the important word.

 

The incident I was alluding to was the Battle of Lexington and Concord, in which the British army tried to seize the armory of the local colonial militia.

 

What exactly are the myths and distortions? Maybe I'm wrong, but you could probably do better than just contradicting me.

[Dr. Dalek]

Actually, that was about tax, not gun control.

Gun controll did come ito it at one point, read the "Give Me Liberty or Give me Death" speech.

[Pangloss]

No matter what the wording, I think the US should enforce the sentiment of the constitution. And it is clear that the writers of the amendment intended for ordinary folk to be allowed to carry muskets. So I think all US citizens should be allowed to carry muskets, and gunpowder based pistols.

 

Exactly! Heck, that even preserves Jefferson's principle of a democracy needing to have the ability to overturn itself when necessary. It seems unlikely that our overstressed military would be able to do much against the combined might of 350 million musketeers. (grin)

[Sisyphus]

350 million? Then who's left to fight against?

[Pangloss]

The MAN! (YT help me out here!)

 

(Sorry for the digression.)

[iglak]

Exactly! Heck, that even preserves Jefferson's principle of a democracy needing to have the ability to overturn itself when necessary. It seems unlikely that our overstressed military would be able to do much against the combined might of 350 million musketeers. (grin)

there's a slight problem with that.

the government isn't worrying about people getting weapons and starting a civil war. the government is worried about people getting the <i>chance</i> to get weapons and start a civil war.

 

muskets and othere gunpowder guns are... very rarely talked about in the context of gun laws, and only given a passing glance if talked about.

 

 

out of the 350 million, i'd guess that maybe 100 million would be able and willing to buy a gun (the rest are too crippled to shoot straight, or too young to know what they're doing, or are simply against owning guns).

of that, i'd guess that maybe 50 million would be willing to buy a musket.

of that, i'd guess that maybe 25 million would be willing to learn how to use their musket sufficiently well.

but reality will likely be MUCH less than that, due to the idea that muskets can't win against a modern gun.

 

the idea of owning a gun is not only protection against robberies and the like, but also protection againts the government if they ever decide to confiscate guns, or anything related. a musket might work for one shot, if you keep it loaded, but modern guns will always win out due to speed (if not accuracy and power too).

 

 

think about it though.

in a fight against 350 million muskets, what could the government use to win (not that winning would do anything, because everyone would be dead)?

tanks, jets and helicopters, machine guns and gatling guns, intelligent tactics, bombs.

 

now let's say that they're going against the more realistic 25 million.

let's say there's even a civil war about it.

due to one side only carrying muskets (and not being very intelligent due to a lack of being well regulated [as a consequence of today's culture])

at BEST, 1 million government soldiers would be killed, and 25 million "rebels" would be massacred.

at worst, 0 goverenment soldiers would be killed, and 25 million rebels would be assimilated into US culture through drugs and the like, or put into concentration camps.

 

why is that worse? because being mentally dead is worse than being dead (even the founding fathers said that [basically])

 

 

 

but that would not happen.

because the government is trying to stop it at the very source: by not allowing citizens to gain the mental will and acuity to want and initiate a civil war in the first place.

 

guns are harmless toward the government if they are controlled, or if people think that they are inherently evil.

guns are extremely dangerous toward the government, however, if they are respected. because guns, and the intelligence required to respect them, have the power to give people courage to stand up for what they think is right.

 

 

 

i also think it's really amazing that nunchuks are illegal (and being confiscated) in some (US)states (New York and California, and maybe others).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Yeah, I don't think Jefferson was ever on the front lines getting shot at. As long as you have a democracy, I don't see the need for the population to have arms.

democracy... are you sure? in what way?

voting, sure. but you're forgetting about voting fraud and misdirecting voters. logical fallacies are extremely effective in politics (especially towards the general population).

what kind of democracy is seperated into two sides who aren't willing to listen to eachother?

furthermore, what kind of democracy is split in many other ways with each side unwilling to listen to the other? even nuclear families are split are split in that way (see: teenage angst).

what kind of democracy exists where only the democratic and republican parties are seriously talked about in elections?

what kind of democracy exists where we keep worrying about terrorists extremists, and keep pointing fingers?

what kind of democracy exists where the media is heavily censored, and the goverenment is close to big brother?

what kind of democracy exists where people are HAPPY that airplanes may be given extra security in the form of complex lie detectors in order to determine intent? that's pre-emptive law, making arrests to stop a potential (not necessary) event, based on people's current thoughts.

 

we're getting ever closer to communism (and not in a good way).

[Sisyphus]

You do realize that "the government" is not some separate entity, right? It's a government of the people. So a rebellion of "the people vs. the government" is a nonsensical phrase. Factions can exist, and maybe one faction controls the government another other decides to raise arms against that government, but that's not "the people." The American Revolution was different. Yes, we were technically citizens of the British Empire, but for all practical purposes we were a people ruled by a foreign government.

[Severian]

The American Revolution was different. Yes, we were technically citizens of the British Empire, but for all practical purposes we were a people ruled by a foreign government.

 

I really don't see the logic in that. By the same reasoning, the SOuth at the outbreak of the civil war was also a people 'ruled by a foreign government'

[iglak]

You do realize that "the government" is not some separate entity, right? It's a government of the people. So a rebellion of "the people vs. the government" is a nonsensical phrase. Factions can exist, and maybe one faction controls the government another other decides to raise arms against that government, but that's not "the people." The American Revolution was different. Yes, we were technically citizens of the British Empire, but for all practical purposes we were a people ruled by a foreign government.

 

that's not exactly true for today's US culture.

 

the people are split into two halves (general).

one half believes that the government is a foreign harmful entity.

the other half believes that the government is an all-powerful entity (like an owner), who's duty is to make life better for everyone (or at least that half).

 

but the thing is, both halves view the government as a foreign body. and for all intents and purposes, it can be called one, because it does not give the people adequate knoledge of it's affairs, and thus little ability to disagree. it is acting as a controlling owner, not as a helpful organ.

[Sisyphus]

I really don't see the logic in that. By the same reasoning, the SOuth at the outbreak of the civil war was also a people 'ruled by a foreign government'

 

I see that as different because in the case of the Revolution, the colonies played no part in the government that was ruling them. No representation in Parliament, etc. At the time of the Civil War, the federal government was primarily a group of state governments, some of whom tried to leave the group. At the end of the Civil War, however, it's certainly arguable that the South was ruled by foreigners. Certainly most Southerners felt that way.

[Sisyphus]

that's not exactly true for today's US culture.

 

the people are split into two halves (general).

one half believes that the government is a foreign harmful entity.

the other half believes that the government is an all-powerful entity (like an owner), who's duty is to make life better for everyone (or at least that half).

 

Well you're wrong about that, because I'm an American, and I don't think either one of those is remotely true. It's not a separate entity. There's not a "government caste" and a "citizen caste." We ARE the government.

[swansont]

I really don't see the logic in that. By the same reasoning, the SOuth at the outbreak of the civil war was also a people 'ruled by a foreign government'

 

Really? They had representation in government. "Taxation without representation is tyranny," a popular revolutionary slogan, implies that the colonials did not.