[Shooter973]

How do you think life here in the USA would be different if we never had the 2nd Amendment? I think our free speech and most of our other rights would have disappeared long ago, with out the teeth of the 2nd amendment. Just a little something to think about! :( :uhoh: How would your own life be different ? :(

[Devonai]

You only need to look as far as the UK to answer this question.

[Bill Hook]

There wouldn't be a 1st or a 3rd-10th either.

[bukijin]

Registration of all firearms, licensing of all firearms owners - at the government's discretion - not as a right.
It's much easier to legislate than to change the constitution.

[Delmar]

Pounds Sterling and Texan's with a clipped Brit accent???? LMAO!

[71Commander]

There wouldn't be an America

[Bruce in West Oz]

You'd find it would be just the same as living here.

You'd be permitted to own the firearms the government said you could have for as long as they said you could have them. They (and you) would be licensed and registered; your details would be on a national database.

End of story.

Bruce

[Iain]

Yep, devonai is right. As I write this there is a government officer standing next to me to make sure I say 'but there is free speech in the UK'. Oooh he's gone, there isn't any, I have to have all my posts vetted by MI5 and they beat me when I say bad things about the Labour Party. (and for those who need irony spelled out -> :rolleyes: )

[clarkg1124]

Ah,Australia-wonderful people,beautiful scenery.When you get fed up with your slide into Fascism,throw the bums out!!!Start over again!!!We will show you how!!!Maybe we should do the same here.
Clark

[Mark Tyson]

throw the bums out!!!Start over again!!!We will show you how!

We should lead by example.

[clarkg1124]

My last sentence suggests that very thing.
Clark

[Hot brass]

This would be a communist country

[mountainclmbr]

If this country didn't have a 2nd ammendment I would just add about 50 million USA people to the count of citizens murdered by their own governments in the last century. I also think that the world would have been taken over by communism. It is actually quite terrifying when I think about it.

[Mr. Bombastic]

Yep, devonai is right. As I write this there is a government officer standing next to me to make sure I say 'but there is free speech in the UK'. Oooh he's gone, there isn't any, I have to have all my posts vetted by MI5 and they beat me when I say bad things about the Labour Party. (and for those who need irony spelled out -> )

You think there's free speech here? Just take a look at the latest scandal concerning Charles. The media has been prohibited from reporting on it!

You do realise internet access here is monitored automatically don't you? The government forces ISPs to keep records which the police have access to on demand.

Edit.: Actually, everything I just posted is a lie. The British Government is a bastion of freedom.

Please note: this post has been edited by INGSOC.

[Iain]

You can freely read about it on the internet. That is a reasonably minor issue, the alleged sexuality of the heir to the throne is not of public interest as far as I am concerned. In fact the whole royalty is of no interest to me and I wish they would go away (a sentiment your sig seems to agree with).

The ISP thingy - I don't like it, but child porn is an issue. Obviously there is a double edged argument there which I thoroughly appreciate.

This place isn't Soviet Russia, we enjoy a significant amount of free speech, although issues like 'incitement to racial hatred' are thorny.

[Mr. Bombastic]

I'm not the monarchys numero uno fan either, but that doesn't mean I can condone censoring the medias reporting of an event concerning the future Head of State.

You think it's fine that everyone is guilty before proven innocent nowadays? Monitored internet 'just in case' you commit a crime. Monitored public 'just in case' you commit a crime. Arrest for carrying a pocket-knife 'just in case' you commit a crime. And when ID cards come out, mass DNA fingerprinting and logging 'just in case' you commit a crime.

You are a potential paedophile in our Governments eyes. Feel free?

How fettered fast we are.

[Iain]

as I said, there is a double edged argument to monitoring by ISP's and fully appreciate what you are saying. Do American ISP's monitor their subscribers?

[Mr. Bombastic]

It's not really double edged. Infringe everyones freedom and track as many people as possible in public and private so that the government has some extra evidence to use against against the small minority that commit crimes. It's a pretty unbalanced 'double' edged sword.

[Standing Wolf]

There wouldn't be an America

Yep.

[DJJ]

Australia and the UK would be scrambling to find someone else with a "gun culture" to blame their problems on.

[MeekandMild]

Taken literally, the Constitution would not have been ratified and so we would still be working under the Articles of Confederation. We would have avoided all the pitfalls of Federalism and Empire.

We would have avoided the War of 1812, the Mexian American War, the Civil War, the Spanish American War and probably both World Wars. Needless to say French Indochina would still be French and we would have never set foot in Persia. We would be primarily an agrarian nation, much smaller, with much of our present area being occupied by the Five Civilized Tribes, the Cherokee Nation, and several other viable countries. Texas would be a separate country, and would have annexed Mexico. Louisiana would nearly cut the country in half, with a good chance of being allied with Texas.

But don't lose hope. We can still get there from here. Though I'd be a little bit apprehensive when the North Dakota Free Norwegian Republic gets ahold of all those nukes. :neener:

[Stevie-Ray]

There, in that wooden stock and blued steel, lies what gives the most common of men the most uncommon of freedoms. When ordinary hands are free to own this extraordinary symbol, representing the full measure of human dignity and liberty, that is as good as you can have it. It doesn't matter whether it's purpose is to defend our shores or your front door......whether it is a rite of passage for a young man or a tool of survival for a young woman......whether it brings meat to the table or trophies for the shelf.......without respect to age, or gender, or race, or class, the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms connects us all - with all that is right......................Charlton Heston

[BHPshooter]

Look at how you're living now, and it's a fair hint of what it would be like to live without a Second Amendment.

Remember, Rights are bestowed upon you from above, and the government's only legitimate purpose is to protect our rights. We have a RIGHT to [carry a gun for] self-defense, and that right is given from God. That right exists with or without our beloved Bill of Rights, the question of consequence is whether or not the Government is doing its job of making sure that your rights are unimpeded.

Is that what our government is doing? No. Is any government on the planet doing that? Not that I know of.

So, in short, without the Second Amendment you would still have a right to keep and bear arms. The Second (along with the other 9) are there to serve as a line in the sand.

Wes

[Parker Dean]

Well I suppose we won't be hearing from devonai, St Johns, and Mr. Bombastic until, and if, they get back from the re-education camps. Good Luck y'all!

Originally posted by the fumegator
Remember, Rights are bestowed upon you from above, and the government's only legitimate purpose is to protect our rights. We have a RIGHT to [carry a gun for] self-defense, and that right is given from God. That right exists with or without our beloved Bill of Rights, the question of consequence is whether or not the Government is doing its job of making sure that your rights are unimpeded.


There were at least two camps concerning the BoR's. One held that without at least these rights being specifically espoused it would be too easy for the rights of the people to be revoked by an oppressive government. The other was that by enumerating these rights it would be taken to mean that only these rights were protected, although the 9th and 10th were attempts to rectify this.

It seems that the scenario envisioned by the anti-BoR camp has come true in that if it isn't spelled out in the BoR it seems that the courts hold that a right does not exist. While at the same time the pro-BoR camps' worst nightmare is coming true despite the existence of the BoR.

[Sergeant Bob]

Parker Dean It seems that the scenario envisioned by the anti-BoR camp has come true in that if it isn't spelled out in the BoR it seems that the courts hold that a right does not exist.
We have our share of that right here on this board. There are quite a few Cafeteria Constitutionalists, who support only their pet amendments (including the Second) and think even that should be limited to only what they feel comfortable with.
The thing which strikes me (although I do understand it) is that some of the most fervent supporters of the Second Amendment (and the rest of the BOR) are immigrants to this country. If only more people could appreciate freedom the way they do.

[Dilettante]

I think it's impossible for people who have lived free their whole lives to know what it's like to acquire your freedom.
IMHO the best we can do is to make sure that our young people have lots of contact with people who haven't always been here.
Make sure your kids spend some time with war refugees, or people who lived under totalitarian states at one time (old USSR, Iran, etc.)
If you don't know anyone who fits that description, maybe you know someone from a country that's not totalitarian, but still "messed up" in ways, like Mexico or India.
Even people from Europe or Canada often have good reasons why they prefer it here!

[Mad Man]

"The Embarrassing Second Amendment (http://guncite.com/journals/embar.html)" (Sanford Levinson. Yale Law Journal, 1989), begins:


One of the best known pieces of American popular art in this century is the New Yorker cover by Saul Steinberg presenting a map of the United States as seen by a New Yorker (http://www.cartoonbank.com/product_details.asp?sid=50326&did=7). As most readers can no doubt recall, Manhattan dominates the map; everything west of the Hudson is more or less collapsed together and minimally displayed to the viewer. Steinberg's great cover depends for its force on the reality of what social psychologists call "cognitive maps." If one asks inhabitants ostensibly of the same cities to draw maps of that city, one will quickly discover that the images carried around in people's minds will vary by race, social class, and the like. What is true of maps of places--that they differ according to the perspectives of the mapmakers--is certainly true of all conceptual maps.

To continue the map analogy, consider in this context the Bill of Rights: is there an agreed upon "projection" of the concept? Is there even a canonical text of the Bill of Rights? Does it include the first eight, nine, or ten Amendments to the Constitution?[1] (http://guncite.com/journals/embar.html#fn1) Imagine two individuals who are asked to draw a "map" of the Bill of Rights. One is a (stereo-) typical member of the American Civil Liberties Union (of which I am a card-carrying member); the other is an equally (stereo-) typical member of the "New Right." The first, I suggest, would feature the First Amendment[2] (http://guncite.com/journals/embar.html#fn2) as Main Street, dominating the map, though more, one suspects, in its role as protector of speech and prohibitor of established religion than as guardian of the rights of religious believers. The other principal avenues would be the criminal procedure aspects of the Constitution drawn from the Fourth,[3] (http://guncite.com/journals/embar.html#fn3) Fifth,[4] (http://guncite.com/journals/embar.html#fn4) Sixth,[/URL=http://guncite.com/journals/embar.html#fn5][5][/URL] and Eighth[6] (http://guncite.com/journals/embar.html#fn6) Amendments. Also depicted prominently would be the Ninth Amendment,[7] (http://guncite.com/journals/embar.html#fn7) although perhaps as in the process of construction. I am confident that the ACLU map would exclude any display of the just compensation clause of the Fifth Amendment[8] (http://guncite.com/journals/embar.html#fn8) or of the Tenth Amendment.[9] (http://guncite.com/journals/embar.html#fn9)

The second map, drawn by the New Rightist, would highlight the free exercise clause of the First Amendment,[10] (http://guncite.com/journals/embar.html#fn10) the just compensation clause of the Fifth Amendment,[11] (http://guncite.com/journals/embar.html#fn11) and the Tenth Amendment.[12] (http://guncite.com/journals/embar.html#fn12) Perhaps the most notable difference between the two maps, though, would be in regard to the Second Amendment: "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." What would be at most only a blind alley for the ACLU mapmaker would, I am confident, be a major boulevard in the map drawn by the New Right adherent. It is this last anomaly that I want to explore in this essay.



What is really interesting is footnote #1 (http://guncite.com/journals/embar.html#fn1)


[1] (http://guncite.com/journals/embar.html#fnb1) It is not irrelevant that the Bill of Rights submitted to the states in 1789 included not only what are now the first ten Amendments, but also two others. Indeed, what we call the First Amendment was only the third one of the list submitted to the states. The initial "first amendment" in fact concerned the future size of the House of Representatives, a topic of no small importance to the Anti-Federalists, who were appalled by the smallness of the House seemingly envisioned by the Philadelphia framers. The second prohibited any pay raise voted by members of Congress to themselves from taking effect until an election "shall have intervened." See J. Goebel, 1 The Oliver Wendell Holmes Devise History of the Supreme Court of the United States: Antecedents and Beginnings to 1801, at 442 n.162 (1971). Had all of the initial twelve proposals been ratified, we would, it is possible, have a dramatically different cognitive map of the Bill of Rights. At the very least, one would neither hear defenses of the "preferred" status of freedom of speech framed in terms of the "firstness" of (what we know as) the First Amendment, nor the wholly invalid inference drawn from that "firstness" of some special intention of the Framers to safeguard the particular rights laid out there.

[2] (http://guncite.com/journals/embar.html#fnb2) "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion ... or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." U.S. Const. Amend. I.

[3] (http://guncite.com/journals/embar.html#fnb3) "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated; and no Warrants shall issue but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized." U.S. Const. Amend. IV.

[4] (http://guncite.com/journals/embar.html#fnb4) "No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life and limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law ...." U.S. Const. Amend. V.

[5] (http://guncite.com/journals/embar.html#fnb5) "In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defense." U.S. Const. Amend. VI.

[6] (http://guncite.com/journals/embar.html#fnb6) "Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted." U.S. Const. Amend. VIII.

[7] (http://guncite.com/journals/embar.html#fnb7) "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." U.S. Const. Amend. IX.

[8] (http://guncite.com/journals/embar.html#fnb8) "[N]or shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation." U.S. Const. Amend. IV.

[9] (http://guncite.com/journals/embar.html#fnb9) "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." U.S. Const. Amend. X.

[10] (http://guncite.com/journals/embar.html#fnb10) "Congress shall make no law ... prohibiting the free exercise thereof [religion]...." U.S. Const. Amend. I.

[11] (http://guncite.com/journals/embar.html#fnb11) See supra note 8 (http://guncite.com/journals/embar.html#n8-1).

[12] (http://guncite.com/journals/embar.html#fnb12) See supra note 9 (http://guncite.com/journals/embar.html#n9-1).



FYI: The "original" second amendment -- which was proposed in 1789 -- was finally ratified as the 27th amendment (http://www.archives.gov/national_archives_experience/constitution_amendments_11-27.html#27) in 1992 (3 years after "The Embarrassing Second Amendment" was published).


No law, varying the compensation for the services of the Senators and Representatives, shall take effect, until an election of representatives shall have intervened.


Back in the mid-1990s, Cliff May (http://www.defenddemocracy.org/biographies/biographies_show.htm?attrib_id=7374) ( when he was an associate editor of the (Denver) Rocky Mountain News) wrote a column about the "differences between liberals and conservatives." One of the items was something like, "Conservatives believe the heart of the constitution is the second and tenth amendments. Liberals believe it is Roe v. Wade."

[amprecon]

Without the 2nd Amendment? There would be alot of outlaws.

I don't believe we would be the country we are today. Sure, during the early years of this country alot of people wouldn't have cared whether it was lawful or not, they would've done what they needed to survive. As we became more "civilized" and the need for such defense and food gathering was not as apparent, there is no doubt the government would have banned them outright, especially during the roaring 20's.

I thank God that I was born in a country whose founders had such clear foresight to include in their creation of a new "limited power" government, a document acknowledging and enforcing basic human rights.

For those great men, with all the opportunities for immense powers, to have the humility to acknowledge that all men are equal and subject to a higher power other than man is truly a testament to their character.