1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

The Second Amendment as a Prophylactic

Discussion in 'General Gun Discussions' started by JackBurtonJr, Mar 14, 2013.

  1. JackBurtonJr

    JackBurtonJr Well-Known Member

    My latest article. Comments here or there are appreciated.

  2. Creature

    Creature Well-Known Member

    Good article with an interesting perspective.
  3. henschman

    henschman Well-Known Member

    For a something to have a deterrent effect on human behavior, it's effectiveness needs to be demonstrated from time to time. It has been a long time since this particular remedy was invoked, and its deterrent effect appears to be waning. I believe several states have called what they thought was a bluff. It is time to show them that it is no bluff, if the 2A is going to continue to have its deterrent effect on would-be tyrants.
  4. JustinJ

    JustinJ Well-Known Member

    Are you saying that a small group of armed individuals should use their guns against duly elected government representatives to violently force political change in the name of stopping tyranny? Uh huh.
  5. Creature

    Creature Well-Known Member

    JustinJ wrote:
    Is that not what the founding fathers had in mind when they wrote the 2nd Amendment into the Bill Of Rights? Or do you think the 2A is only preventative?
  6. average_shooter

    average_shooter Well-Known Member

    Actually, henschman didn't say it, Thomas Jefferson did.
  7. AlbertH

    AlbertH member

    Some constitutional scholars would argue that the second amendment is a clarification of article 1 section 8 that deals with The Militia.

    While some say that the Second Amendment is the U S Constitution, with out the original articles of incorporation and the other amendments, there is no United States of America, just a well armed lawless land
  8. beatledog7

    beatledog7 Well-Known Member

    The preventative (aka deterrent) nature of a prophylactic is moot unless the adversary it is designed to thwart occasionally gets to see it do what it was intended to do.

    When I was in Kosovo in 2002, the locals (Orthodox Christians and Muslims) were not killing each other, though they certainly had been before the arrival of armed force. They sometimes expressed their desire to see US and NATO troops depart, saying it would now be ok for them to do so since the fighting had stopped. The trouble is, as we have seen so many times, once the troops leave, the killing resumes. Why? The very presence of troops with guns keeps things in check. Remove that prophylactic, and the trouble that's been held in check is free to flourish again.

    In the United States, the citizenry is armed, and that's not by accident. The Founders knew that arms are the ultimate preventative, and they knew that if one removes the lid from a box of cute, cuddly kittens, the cute, cuddly kittens leave the box. OK, so such kittens are a manageable problem. But what if the kittens were not so cute and cuddly? What if they quickly grew into lions and tigers hell-bent on taking over your household?

    Armed citizens are only lid on the box of Government kittens. They claim to be cute and cuddly, only trying to help us lead easy and care-free lives. But they're really lions and tigers, determined to stand on our chests with teeth and claws bared.

    Do we want them out of the box?
  9. Creature

    Creature Well-Known Member

    So logically it follows that some scholars would argue that it does not pertain to militias only; that is a individual right. It has been argued in the SCOTUS and found to be an indivdual right.
  10. AlbertH

    AlbertH member

    If the second amendment as written, was to be the law of the land, why weren't slaves and indians allowed to legally own the very weapons that the second amendment protects?

    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.
  11. Blackstone

    Blackstone Well-Known Member

    Love that word, a good read :)
  12. Sam1911

    Sam1911 Moderator

    Albert, that's not a very good argument in that it would apply to the entire Constitution, not just the 2nd Amendment.

    It took quite a while for every resident of the country to be recognized as an equal citizen, but that's a separate issue from any question of what the 2nd Amendment does for the citizen so recognized.
  13. JustinJ

    JustinJ Well-Known Member

    The founding fathers did not write the second amendment so that a very small minority could use violence to get their way. And have no doubt, it is a very small minority who think violence would today be justified. In fact, those who advocate it do far more to hurt gun rights than preserve them.
  14. beatledog7

    beatledog7 Well-Known Member

    Correct! It was written to ensure that a very small minority (those in Federal office) could NOT use violence to get their way.
  15. average_shooter

    average_shooter Well-Known Member

    Because slaves and indians were not viewed as "people" at the time. Slaves were regarded as only 3/5ths of a person for census reasons, not whole "persons" or part of the general "people." One could argue neither were Caucasian women of the era. Or anyone that didn't hold property, etc...
  16. Creature

    Creature Well-Known Member

    JustinJ wrote:
    Really? Why then did the Founding Fathers write in the Second Amendment? Did they mean a very large majority could use violence to get their way?
  17. JFtheGR8

    JFtheGR8 Well-Known Member

    When speaking to those on the fence about gun control if they ask me why I NEED an "assault rifle" I tell them I don't NEED one and that is what the 2A is for. Then I let the irony sink in.

    Posted from Thehighroad.org App for Android
  18. JustinJ

    JustinJ Well-Known Member

    Pretty much, yeah, in addition to a right of self defense. The whole point of democracy, however, is so that the large majority can get it's way without needing violence. If that contract were to be broken, then it's another story. The constition does also try and balance the rights of the against the will of the majority. However, just because a minority disagrees with a policy that does not entitle them to try and take over and impose their will on the whole.

    Tyrants are not defined by their policies alone. They are primarily defined by the way in which they gain and retain power. It is completely contradictary to have a democratic process if at the end of they day those who lose are entitled to try and take power by force.
  19. average_shooter

    average_shooter Well-Known Member

    Ah, I think I see where things are breaking down.

    JustinJ, the Founding Fathers did not set up a democracy, they set up a republic. There's a difference. The very fact alone that we are now a "Democracy" shows that we have devolved away from being a republic, and will continue to devolve politically until something drastic happens. It's the way most, if not all, empires in the past have come to their demise.
  20. Blackstone

    Blackstone Well-Known Member

    A democracy implies that the majority can rule over the minority, am I correct?

Share This Page