Can the 2A be linked to any other amendment?

[Rickt300]

It would seem they can. What is the purpose of the 2A? I thought it was to be the backbone of all the other amendments. It is not about hunting it is about resisting any attempt at our rights being taken. The first amendment is the preamble to the use of the second amendment. When discourse stops then what do we have left? In fact the entire discussion on the 2A is done under the auspices of the first amendment. Without it we would have no venue to discuss the 2A or any other amendment.

 

[DoubleMag]

They are all linked in that they were written within the same document?

Also, I remember reading that the originators having wrote them very similarly in wording, it is plausible that changing one can / could effect others.

I do NOT see that, the 1st is most important, the 2nd is secondary, third is thirdly etc etc. For example, if your particular case is based on the 5th, IT is the most important to YOU; think individual rights. Something forgot about via one line of thinking, such as ''we (them) need to restrict A's rights because of B's actions'', etc.

 

[hso]

How do you relate the 1st the 2nd in the context of ACTIVISM to support the 2A.

Let's be clear, the 1st is how we protect the 2nd. Through "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" we actively work to oppose government restrictions abridging the the right of the people to keep and bear Arms.

Then what it activism in support of the 2A. It requires intent to protect, support, restore the 2A where others would infringe upon it. It can be starting or participating in shooting clubs, ranges, groups with the intent of establishing owning and using firearms as a normal part of society. The more people that we actively get into firearms ownership and shooting the less likely that those opposed will be able to create fear of normal people owning and using guns. The more we make an effort to help those new gun owners to be safe in the ownership of firearms and their use by mentoring them the more people that look to us as mentors instead of threats to them and society. Peaceably assembling groups of new gun owners to be more efficient at mentoring them can serve an activism purpose as long as we're not ranting or heavy handed or muddling the message. Focus on what actual responsible gun ownership and use actually is and not what the Anti propagandists would tell them it should be. The safe rules of shooting, the storage of firearms, the responsibility of it so that it can be enjoyed and participated in so the lies of the Antis are clear.

When Antis attempt to enact restrictions then the right to peaceably assemble and petition our Government becomes important Activism. Organize groups of fellow experienced and new gun owners and demonstrate that we care about threatened restrictions. Note that we are guaranteed the right to peaceably assemble and to petition government, not behave in a threatening manner or be disruptive so we're obligated to find out what the rules of assembly are or going to local or state governments and making our voices heard. Knowing the process of peaceably assembling and petitioning the government goes a long way in demonstrating that the Antis are lying about us.

"Press" has taken on new meaning since the days of moveable type and pamphleteering. We're communicating on the internet and there are many examples of blogs and "newsletters" that are part of the modern "press", forums and social media make for "speech", use of those means to defend the 2nd are taking over from print and broadcast. They require intent and thoughtful argument to be effective Activism, not just ranting or complaining. If you have the skill to make those arguments great, but if you aren't quite as eloquent you can still support those that are. Remember that the intent is to protect the 2A and to reach other people inside and outside the 2A community. Pick those voices you want to spread carefully. Remember that you're reaching out to people the Antis are actively and subtly trying to sew fear amongst. You're trying to mentor strangers. Choose how you do that wisely and put some effort into it.

 

[Fyrstyk]

I see the phrase "the right of the people" used in many of the amendments. That could be the link. I always wondered why the anti gun people think "the people" is different for the second amendment and means militia.

 

[kje54]

I see the phrase "the right of the people" used in many of the amendments. That could be the link. I always wondered why the anti gun people think "the people" is different for the second amendment and means militia.

That's actually quite simple, it's how they interpret "well regulated". They apply the modern 20th/21st century usage of the phrase and not the 17th/18th/19th century common usage which meant well run, well put together, well oiled, properly functioning. Today we might say "that person looks healthy" our founders would say "that person has a well regulated constitution". The examples of the usage during the time our Constitution was written are abundant in letters and writings.
Here's one link with examples:

https://armsandthelaw.com/archives/WellRegulatedinold literature.pdf

 

[Carl N. Brown]

When frontier (west of the Appalachian Mountains) militia members mustered for drill, they were expected to show up with regulation equipment, including military grade musket or rifle and a specified amount of powder, ball, flints. And other common equipment carried by the soldier. Those who did not or could not afford a military arm were "fined" by having to rent one of the militia unit's loaner guns for the duration of the drill. Well-regulated militia meant they were voluntarily complying with regulations for the common good of the community, with their own arms, and were less likely to be used against their community, as could be a standing army or a bunch of hired Hessians.

 

[MEHavey]

the 1st is how we protect the 2nd

Nay... I would argue thay protect each other.
- The 1st protects the 2nd in times of normal (dare I say 'well-regulated' ?) social contract.
- But it is the 2nd that protects the 1st when that social contract goes down the drain.

Together... they protect the rest of the entire Document.

,

 

[hso]

The 2nd is the final recourse after all else fails. It doesn't protect the 1st or any other parts of the Constitution+BOR. We think of it as protecting them, but what we want to believe is the threat of it protects the others. THAT works only when the enemies of the Constitution and BOR believe along with us that threat and are deterred from going too far too quickly (how do you cook a frog so it doesn't jump out of the pot...).

The 2nd is "all other means have failed and we need to revolt, again" to claw back and reset a clearly tyrannical government. I don't see the last recourse as actually protecting anything. It is just guaranteeing the means to start over.

 

[redcon1]

Within one year of the New Zealand gun ban, I was watching a video of the NZ state police knocking on a citizen's door to threaten him with arrest because parliament found his social media posts offensive. I don't know if one had anything to do with the other but I do feel like that well illustrates tyranny's natural order of operations.

I always like to remind people of Judge Alex Kozinski's words when the subject of tyranny and second amendment comes up. He was a liberal judge on the 9th circuit court who happened to be Jewish and who passed away in 2014. He said:

All too many of the other great tragedies of history — Stalin’s atrocities, the killing fields of Cambodia, the Holocaust, to name but a few — were perpetrated by armed troops against unarmed populations. Many could well have been avoided or mitigated, had the perpetrators known their intended victims were equipped with a rifle and twenty bullets apiece, as the Militia Act required here. If a few hundred Jewish fighters in the Warsaw Ghetto could hold off the Wehrmacht for almost a month with only a handful of weapons, six million Jews armed with rifles could not so easily have been herded into cattle cars.
My excellent colleagues have forgotten these bitter lessons of history. The prospect of tyranny may not grab the headlines the way vivid stories of gun crime routinely do. But few saw the Third Reich coming until it was too late. The Second Amendment is a doomsday provision, one designed for those exceptionally rare circumstances where all other rights have failed - where the government refuses to stand for reelection and silences those who protest; where courts have lost the courage to oppose, or can find no one to enforce their decrees. However improbable these contingencies may seem today, facing them unprepared is a mistake a free people get to make only once.

 

[1942bull]

The OP presents an interesting question. My view is that no amendment is contingent on any other amendment. Amendments establish rights. The first ten amendments, Bill of Rights, we’re initially all the individual rights expressed in the Constitution. If any two or more were inter-connected then a change in one would require a change in others. That would make rights susceptible to political tampering by amendment.

The concept that 1A is a preamble to 2A and other rights is unsupportable. 2A is Right by which we can protect any other Constitutional Right should the government infringe upon a Right.

2A was not an new idea when drafting the Constitution began in 1787. PA is one of 11 commonwealths of the USA. It is not a state, because it it has its own constitution. It was drawn in 1776, a full 11 years before the US Constitution. Therein is this language: “That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the state …...”. Clearly, colonials saw the right to bear arms as an inherent right not dependent on any other right.

To the contrary however is that an Article of the Constitution can be dependent upon another Article. For example, the Powers of the Legislature take precedence over those of the Executive and Judicial Branches. That is why the the Legislature is Article 1; establishing the ultimate power if the government. Judges have to be approved by the Senate, and Presidential Elections must be certified by both House and Senate. Changing one Article could force changes in other Articles. Not SA, as I understand it, true of Amendments.

Think about this. If th 2A were intended to enforce other amendments, the logical course would have been to make it the preamble to the amendments.

 

[hso]

Amendments establish rights.

I know this is pedantic, but they guarantee the right instead of establishing the right. The right exists, the BOR establishes the guarantee of the right by restricting the government.

 

[MEHavey]

There is no such thing as a "Right"
It is purely a social construct.

Furthermore, that social construct we might from time-to-time call
a "Right" exists only so far as it can be taken, or defended.

Hence the 2A does protect the 1A "...when that social con[struct] goes down the drain."

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
(I'll see your pedantic, and raise two fundamentals)


.

 

[redcon1]

There is no such thing as a "Right"
It is purely a social construct.

Furthermore, that social construct we might from time-to-time call
a "Right" exists only so far as it can be taken, or defended.

Hence the 2A does protect the 1A "...when that social con[struct] goes down the drain."

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
(I'll see your pedantic, and raise two fundamentals)


.

I'll have to disagree. Natural rights do exist and they predate the existence of any organized government or religion. It is the nature of government (and religion) to impose limits on the natural rights of the governed but that doesn't make those natural rights any less real. A government can tell you that you don't have a right to defend your own life but what animal on this planet in the history of all animals on this planet would ever allow itself to be killed? It is our most fundamental, natural and unalienable right-the right to life which our constitution protects against the tyrannical proclivities of organized government (and religion).

 

[MEHavey]

"Natural" rights -- if they exist -- are that of nature.
The strongest individual.
The strongest tribe.

Anything beyond that is pure social construct -- and at the whim
of whatever that social construct is at any given time.

One ignores that at their (very) great peril.



.

 

[Rickt300]

Interesting commentary. It seems my curiosity is mostly not about the activism to support the 2A but rather how it is to be used.

 

[HowieG]

You could take it more directly. It is possible to need to use arms to DIRECTLY protect the actual original copy of the constitution. The actual document. If so, the 2A would be protecting everything.

 

[hso]

the actual original copy

There is no one "actual copy" and a piece of parchment is only that. Rights are not what they are written on.

 

[HowieG]

There is no one "actual copy" and a piece of parchment is only that. Rights are not what they are written on.

Not an "actual" copy. The actual official ORIGINAL copy. Penned by Jacob Shallus from the draft documents. Stored in the National Archives. The one endorsed by the 39 delegates on September 17, 1787 and submitted to Congress for consideration. That one. And it is defended by the entire US military. We swore an oath to do so.

 

[webrx]

9th amendment - The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
i.e. inherent right to live, right to defend yourself and your family and property might be one example

10th amendment - 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.
i.e. If it is not specifically outlined as a power of the people, government, president, house, etc, then it is up to the states or people to determine if it is a right or law - not the politicians. One should note here that if it is specifically outlined in the constitution, then, it takes a constitutional amendment to change it. So, if we have the right to keep and bear arms, or the right to freedom of speech and religion, etc guaranteed by the constitution, then it takes an amendment to change that, it should not be able to be changed by a sitting president, politician, single state government, etc. AKA if you have the right to keep and bear arms, then the states can not infringe on that right according to the 10th amendment.

To amend the constitution:
Article V

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution, or, on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the several states, or by conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress; provided that no amendment which may be made prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any manner affect the first and fourth clauses in the ninth section of the first article; and that no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate.

I am not a lawyer, but I have read the constitution many times and I believe myself to be intelligent and educated, as well as a patriot who has fought for this great Country and our Constitution. I for one, do not understand how and why we continue to allow the government or states like California to violate the foundation of our country by violating it's supreme legal document - The Constitution. I hope one day, the SC does the right thing and puts a stop to the political takeover of our country though I fear that is a pipe dream at this point.

Rant over.

d

 

[hso]

By that thinking you reduce the 2A to just the military and police serving in a security role. That could be under a government abiding by the piece of paper and the principals it documents or an oppressive one simply using it as a sham. The 2A is the opposite of that. It is the right of "the people" to oppose an oppressive government that no longer respects the people or their rights under the Constitution. The military and police as institutions are in no way "the people". People may work or serve within them, but the institutions of the military and the police are serving the government regardless of the oath the people take that work within them.

 

[Stevie-Ray]

I've always read two trains of thought on the 2nd, but they both favor We The People. First was the founding fathers were generally afraid of standing armies, and their possible use by corrupted tyrannical governments to get people to toe the line. Since at that time the militia would be the day's "standing army," they thought the people should be armed with the same weapons, in case the militia was improperly used against them. The second train of thought, far simpler, was that the people themselves were the militia, and were expected to defend the homeland anytime it came under fire.
Personally, I believe the first TOT, since Article I, Section 8, Clause 16 of the Constitution grants the power to "regulate" the militia.
Could never understand the basis for an argument against it, that didn't simply favor elitism and a thirst for power.

 

[webrx]

HSO - if that comment was to me, not sure I understand how my comment led to that interpretation. The constitution specifically says the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
D

 

[bersaguy]

As has been mentioned, the 1st 10 amendments to the constitution do not establish any rights or privileges to the American people. These are inherent rights that have a great propensity to be curtailed by tyrannical governments. They were therefore specificly called out so congress would not only need to pass a law, but amend the constitution should they want to deny these rights to the people. So, are they linked...in the sense that should any of the 10 rights listed in the BOR be eliminated, the rest are sure to follow.
Ok, so what does this have to do with activism? I think this, highlighting the hypocrisy of applying "common sense" regulation to one right in particular, and not the others. Can you imagine if we treated just the 1st and 4th amendments like the 2nd. The argument that the founding fathers could never imagine or intend the 2nd amendment to apply to semi automatic firearms or magazines holding more than 10 rounds as a justification for making criminals out of those who possess them is as ridiculous as the argument that the founding fathers could never have imagined radio, or the internet, and therefore using those tools to express free speech is not protected by the 1st amendment. In the same way, saying computers and digital documents were not around in 1776, so the people should have no right to expect 4th amendment protection for those items. Now the latter example is indeed being unreasonably searched and seized without probable cause or warrant...but not on the grounds that the framers never intended for them to be protected, just that they can be taken without physical intrusion into one's home, and often without the knowledge of the people. Can you imagine the uproar if a bill was passed allowing federal agents to arrest you for posting political speech to Instagram?....Sure, you have free speech, but you'll need to print that up on leaflets and hand them out in your town square...because that's how the founding fathers intended it.......

 

[redcon1]

I've always read two trains of thought on the 2nd, but they both favor We The People. First was the founding fathers were generally afraid of standing armies, and their possible use by corrupted tyrannical governments to get people to toe the line. Since at that time the militia would be the day's "standing army," they thought the people should be armed with the same weapons, in case the militia was improperly used against them. The second train of thought, far simpler, was that the people themselves were the militia, and were expected to defend the homeland anytime it came under fire.
Personally, I believe the first TOT, since Article I, Section 8, Clause 16 of the Constitution grants the power to "regulate" the militia.
Could never understand the basis for an argument against it, that didn't simply favor elitism and a thirst for power.

My opinion is that our forefathers disdained large standing armies as it was rightfully believed that it would be used to subjugate the people and prior to WW2, we didn't really maintain a large standing army-not to the extent that we do today. After WW2, our world changed and the large standing Army became part of our life and Americans cheered because they love their soldiers. Fair enough then but having now ignored the wisdom of our forefathers for nearly 80 years, the question comes up that well, since we have this large standing army, what do we need a militia for? And, since we don't need a militia, why do need a second amendment? I see this line of reasoning as being highly illogical. It's like saying, "we're already pretty much subjugated, why don't we just go all in and let our slavery be complete?" The words of our forefathers repeat the same idea over and over again and are echoed in the US constitution and in many state constitutions that were written at around the same time as the US constitution-that we should be leery of large standing Armies and that the people should retain the right to keep and bear arms unconnected with any military service and the government doesn't have the right to infringe on that right even if they have the right to establish a large standing army.

 

[LiveLife]

Can the 2A be linked to any other amendment?

Yes, as well expressed by the founders to the First Amendment and demonstrated by 14/15/19th Amendments for expanding voting rights.

Keep in mind that initially, founders thought the Constitution was enough to establish the central/Federal government. But having just fought to be liberated from the tyranny of Great Britain, the founders thought of the future where another oppressive/tyrannical power could impose on the rights of "We the People" whether foreign or domestic. So the founders ADDED the Bill of Rights and went through various review and revision process to carefully word each Amendment deliberately - https://www.thehighroad.org/index.p...-court-petitioned.899215/page-2#post-12154615

To me, the Second Amendment could be separated into three parts:

• 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

And 2A could have been written like this:

• The right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed and a well regulated Militia is necessary to the security of a free State.

In 1789, James Madison wrote - https://thefederalistpapers.org/us/...explain-the-second-amendment-this-says-it-all

“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
​

Keep in mind that during founders' time an "Army" was formed from time to time for the purpose of fighting wars and disbanded after the war.

“A militia when properly formed are in fact the people themselves…” – Richard Henry Lee, Federal Farmer No. 18, January 25, 1788

“I ask who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people...” – George Mason, Address to the Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 4, 1788

“The Constitution shall never be construed to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms.” – Samuel Adams, Massachusetts Ratifying Convention, 1788

“What, Sir, is the use of a militia? It is to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty …. Whenever Governments mean to invade the rights and liberties of the people, they always attempt to destroy the militia...” – Rep. Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts, I Annals of Congress 750, August 17, 1789​

“The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them.” – Joseph Story, Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States, 1833​

So the ultimate goal of the Second Amendment is for "We the People" to secure a free State so "We the People" can exercise the First Amendment.

US Supreme Court ruled in DC v Heller that right of the people to keep and bear Arms was independent of the service to a Militia.

And just as First Amendment applies to modern forms of communication/free speech commonly used like email, texting, etc. and 14/15/19th Amendments expanding voting rights to minorities and women; Second Amendment applies to modern types of Arms commonly used like magazine fed semi-auto firearms, even though gun owners are in the minority.