"Do you honestly believe the founding fathers encoded violent revolution into BoR?"

[Flyboy]

http://hardware.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=147314&cid=12341974

Yeah, whatever. At the time the second amendment was written, the militias were an *instrument* of the government, not a force to act against it.

We didn't have a standing army at that time, so the citizen militias were necessary for national defense and security. Now that we have a standing all-volunteer army, there is absolutely no need for citizen militias (which is why there aren't any).

Why do some people consider the prospect of armed citizens plunging the nation into anarchy and vigilantism to be compatible with the phrase "well-regulated militia"? Do you honestly believe that the founding fathers encoded violent revolution into the bill of rights?

--LMCBoy on Slashdot (who is not, never has been, and never will be me)
-----------------------

Feel free to reply to this guy; I think he needs a little education.

 

[Fletchette]

Do you honestly believe that the founding fathers encoded violent revolution into the bill of rights?

Yes.

 

[Fletchette]

I am actually quite impressed with some of the responses of the Slash-Dotters. I am glad to see that these technophiles are fairly well educated in history as well.

 

[Kaylee]

Given that FF had just succeeded in throwing a violent revolution against their own government of the time I'd have to say the answer to that is a big duh.

-K

 

[Ben Shepherd]

YES.

But here's the rub: Just where is "the line"?

By the way: The common definition of the term "well regulated" at the time the Constitution was written was "well trained". It had nothing to do with governmental regulation as is often assumed today.

Flyboy, I humbly suggest you spend some time reading and the federalist and anti-federalist papers, if you haven't already. This will clear up a lot of misconceptions on this subject.

Yes, the cocept of armed revolt scares the bejeebers out of some, but the fathers did indeed write that possibilty into our Constitution.

 

[Thumper]

Do a little research on the phrase "well regulated" as used elsewhere during the period.

Well regulated...in good working order...like a clock.

Also, Kaylee pretty much put the issue to rest earlier.

 

[Standing Wolf]

Do you honestly believe that the founding fathers encoded violent revolution into the bill of rights?

Not only yes, but heck, yes!

The founding fathers were violent revolutionists. I'm sure they hoped their creation would obviate the need for additional violent revolution, but were they sure of it? I'm sure not.

 

[another okie]

The question as posed neglects the simple fact that there are two different levels of government involved, state and federal. The purpose of the second amendment is to allow citizens to be well armed so that they may act as citizens of their state against a tyrannical federal government.

 

[Flyboy]

All:

I'm sorry, I may not have made myself clear. I believe the answer is not just "yes," but "pass the ammo." I'm familiar with the history, and I'm actually working on The Federalist and The Anti-Federalist papers. I posted this so that a bunch of us could bring our collective knowledge to bear, and maybe educate a few people over there; much as I like Slashdot, there's a very definite slant.

And I read some of the replies. One in particular impressed me; he mentioned the battle of Athens, TN, in which enraged locals held a corrupt sheriff (and others) by force of arms to ensure an accurate and honest ballot count. This happened in 1946. No, I was never taught this one in school, either, but you can read about it at http://www.jpfo.org/athens.htm.

Oh, and yes, I'm familiar with the historical meaning of "well-regulated." Sorry if I wasn't clear about who was who here. Really, guys, I'm with you on this one! Go reply on Slashdot!

 

[444]

Yes

 

[Nathaniel Firethorn]

Yes, but as a last resort that would hopefully never be needed, due to the restraining influence that an armed population would have on potential tyrants.

Kind of the nuclear option of the day. You never want to have to use it, but you need to keep it fueled up and ready to go, just in case.

- pdmoderator

 

[ravinraven]

The 2A...

...is a not too subtle reminder to those of any following day who would abuse their power where that power came from and who would be coming to get it back if the abusers trampled too far.

The 2A was not put there to allow target shooting and hunting or even to allow self protection and home protection. Those items are a happy result of the 2A.

The fact that all gun grabbing is directed at the honest citizen is all the proof even the terminally stupid need to realize that the 2A was written to defend liberty at the grass-roots level if necessary. Crooks, murderers and school-yard shooters are individuals using guns for individual fun and profit perverted though it is. The danger to corrupt, power mad governments is entirely from the armed honest citizen. The murderers, et al present no threat to power mad governments.

rr

 

[SMMAssociates]

Do you honestly believe that the founding fathers encoded violent revolution into the bill of rights?

Not quite....

I believe that the Founding Fathers agreed with those of us who believe in the basic principle that the government is of, by, and for the people.

I believe that the 2nd Amendment pretty clearly says that we are ready to protect and defend that, by whatever means necessary.

That means both being capable and prepared to oppose all enemies foreign and domestic.... It's rather more a big "Do Not Tread On Me" warning sign, I think, than a threat.

I think the Founding Fathers would excuse those of us who don't want to maintain personal weapons today. The world is vastly different. But the understanding of the requirements and obligations would still be essential to them. The willingness to take responsibility for our own actions and our own defense, whether it's monitoring (and, hopefully, keeping control of) the government, or being out on the front line with those weapons we feel so strongly about.

It is, I think, important that our government recognize that we're paying attention, and prepared to act in extremis, as well as knowing that we are equipped to act in our own defense, regardless of the source of the threat.

There's nothing in the 2nd Amendment that says we should be slaves....

Just IMHO....

 

[Sergeant Sabre]

No more militia? According to United States Code, Title 10, Chapter 13, Section 311, there surely is a militia:

http://frwebgate5.access.gpo.gov/cg...SdocID=487182298727+0+0+0&WAISaction=retrieve

From the U.S. Code Online via GPO Access
[wais.access.gpo.gov]
[Laws in effect as of January 2, 2001]
[Document not affected by Public Laws enacted between
January 2, 2001 and January 22, 2002]
[CITE: 10USC311]
---------------------------------------------------------------

TITLE 10--ARMED FORCES

Subtitle A--General Military Law

PART I--ORGANIZATION AND GENERAL MILITARY POWERS

CHAPTER 13--THE MILITIA

Sec. 311. Militia: composition and classes

(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied
males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of
title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration
of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female
citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are--
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard
and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of
the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval
Militia.
---------------------------------------------------------------

So, fellow militiamen, what say you?

 

[Byron Quick]

We didn't have a standing army at that time, so the citizen militias were necessary for national defense and security. Now that we have a standing all-volunteer army, there is absolutely no need for citizen militias (which is why there aren't any).

Sergeant Sabre beat me to it. The militia hasn't been called up since the 19th century that I know of but the legal mechanism not only exists...but read the law; you're probably a member of it!

The Founding Fathers believed that standing armies were a clear and present danger. It is only in the aftermath of WWII that we have had large peacetime standing military service branches. Why did they consider standing armies to be dangerous to liberty? Read history and current events. As you do make a list with two columns headed: A)Country lost freedom to foreign invader and B)Country lost freedom to its own military and police. When you finish compiling your list then compare the two columns. I'll give you a hint: column B will outnumber column A by orders of magnitude.

 

[Zundfolge]

"Do you honestly believe the founding fathers encoded violent revolution into BoR?"

Yes.

At least one Founding Father; Thomas Jefferson, stated it quite clearly on several occasions.

Prudence, indeed, will dictate that governments long established, should not be changed for light and transient causes; and, accordingly, all experience [has] shown that mankind are more disposed to suffer while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But, when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object, evinces a design to reduce [the people] under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security.
(from the Declaration of Independence no less)

... And what country can preserve its liberties, if it's rulers are not warned from time to time, that this people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms...The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure.

The strongest reason for the people to retain their right to keep and bear arms is as a last resort to protect themselves against tyranny in government.

 

[Vernal45]

"Do you honestly believe the founding fathers encoded violent revolution into BoR?"

HELL YES!, if you think otherwise, pass whatever you smoking away from you, so you can see clearly.

 

[Sam]

No they did not encode it.
It was quite explicit.

Sam

 

[jungleman]

It is our duty to protect the United States from all invaders foreign and domestic.
The reason the people were allowed to keep their weapons was to protect the people from the goverment it it got out of hand.
Is ours out of hand?????????????????????????????????????????????

 

[Art Eatman]

the Preamble to the Bill of Rights explicity states that the purpose of the BOR is to protect against abuse of power by the central government.

The argument, then, is: When is there such an abuse of power than armed resistance is necessary?

Regardless, if one considers armed resistance to be "revolution", then, yes, the Founding Fathers did indeed encode violent revolution into the Bill of Rights.

Art

 

[Tory]

"Encode?" I think not....

DaVinci fetishes and assinine movies about buried treasure notwithstanding, there is nothing "encoded" into the Constitution or the Declaration of Independence. We don't need Col. Rochefort or a basement full of Cray supercomputers to read either document, although interpretation of each is always a matter of debate.

Sam clearly grasps the concept:

"No they did not encode it. It was quite explicit."

I suspect the term the original poster was attempting to use is "CODIFY."

If so, then I would say YES, the final option of armed revolt to overthrow an oppressive government is codified.

 

[shermacman]

I found this in a really old document dated July 4, 1776:

When, in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another...

That whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it...

But when a long train of abuses and usurpations...it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government...

No encoding here!

 

[RevDisk]

"Do you honestly believe the founding fathers encoded violent revolution into BoR?"

Is water wet?

But here's the rub: Just where is "the line"?

That's something private to each man and woman. I'd recommend the Declaration of Independence as a decent checklist. I mean, if it was good enough then...

 

[Cool Hand Luke 22:36]

Yeah, whatever. At the time the second amendment was written, the militias were an *instrument* of the government, not a force to act against it.

At the time when the second amendment was written the people writing it were only ten years or so past the point when their militias were used as a force to oppose the government (the Crown).

 

[brickeyee]

We have four boxes with which to defend our freedom: the soap box, the
ballot box, the jury box, and the cartridge box.
-- Unknown.

I would recommend using them in the appropriate order.