Future of SCOTUS / 2A changed forever

[yokel]

The right to keep and bear arms derives from our duty to retain the basic means necessary to defend our country and our liberty. Certainly it is true that the actual defense of our national borders is normally delegated to the professional military. But we must never think that this revocable delegation of responsibility for national defense is a transfer of ultimate responsibility. We, the people, are ultimately responsible for the defense of country and liberty, and the Second Amendment is crucial to our performance of that duty.

The presence of the Second Amendment in our Constitution reflects the history of the emergence of self-government in the modern world. One key impediment to the assertion of the political rights of the common man throughout much of history was that military conflict was usually left to a professional elite. Until common people were able to get on battlefields and defend themselves, they left that defense to professional classes of warriors. Inevitably, or at least naturally, such warriors became the rulers of the people whose country they defended.

Our Founding Fathers understood that leaving matters of defense entirely in the hands of a professional military class was inconsistent with self-government. The American Founding was a decisive break with the old European order in many ways, but the care our Founders took to ensure an armed citizenry is one of the most striking. Indeed, the formal Constitutional guarantee that the sovereignty of the people would be defended by that people themselves, and with their own weapons, is a kind of condensed summary of the entire doctrine of self-government on which the nation is founded.

For this reason, it is a matter of clear national interest that we make sure that our citizens understand the meaning of their Second Amendment rights — indeed, their Second Amendment duties. It is difficult to see how any citizen could have a clear understanding of his general civic responsibilities if he does not understand the fundamental duty he bears to join with his fellow citizens at all times in remaining vigilant to any threats to liberty. And it is difficult to see how he could understand this if he is allowed to come of age with a hostile or trivial view of the Second Amendment.

 

[A Patriot]

Trump is not President yet. Several of the electoral voters have backed out of their pledges to vote for Trump. It is still possible for Clinton to be President. Wait until after Dec. 19th. and see who is President. If Clinton does end up winning the electoral vote I will not really be surprised. This has been a really strange election so far and I think Trump should watch his back. I would not rule out an assassination attempt by the Clintons.

Whatever happened to the "Dick Act of 1902"? Also known as " the Efficiency of Militia Bill H.R. 11654 of June 28, 1902".

 

[LiveLife]

Even if several electorates vote for Hillary, it will not change the outcome of 270+ votes and Trump will be president.

And if Trump gets assassinated, then Pence will be president to continue the 100/200 day plan that's already outlined. Appointments to SCOTUS will continue.

I am sure Trump is watching his back.

 

[Sistema1927]

If enough electors become unfaithful enough to elect HRC then expect blood to run in the streets. I truly believe it would be the catalyst for civil war, part deux.

 

[barnbwt]

The right to keep and bear arms derives from our duty to retain the basic means necessary to defend our country and our liberty.Certainly it is true that the actual defense of our national borders is normally delegated to the professional military. But we must never think that this revocable delegation of responsibility for national defense is a transfer of ultimate responsibility. We, the people, are ultimately responsible for the defense of country and liberty, and the Second Amendment is crucial to our performance of that duty.

I want to quote this passage again, as it is a great summary of the matter. Now, as an engineering student, I only had to take 1 (one) Civics class in college, which was focused on Texan civics. As part of the curriculum however, the professor made a point of teaching about the different "tiers" of rights, laws, and responsibilities that constitute our republican system of government from top to bottom, so as to provide context to Texas' place in it all. Namely, that all areas of these could be broken down into individual, community, and national tiers. The Founding Fathers certainly had a thing for "threes" when it came to our nation's architecture. In the case of RKBA, when you examine that 'triad' of purposes mentioned previously (self defense, overthrowing tyranny, repelling invasion) through the 'tiers' lens, the three purposes neatly transform into three kinds of defense; defense of self (duh), defense of community (from tyrannical rule), defense of nation (from external invasion or internal revolt). In short, it's all about defense, and always has been, and will only every be.

I forget which of the Enlightenment philosophers was the one pushing the 'tiers' angle (probably Rousseau), but I have always found it a very useful tool for examining the interactions between various elements of our political & legal systems. Invariably it's one tier trying to pull a fast one on the next one down the ladder; luckily it's balanced by the fact that this lower tier always vastly outnumbers the higher one (this is the whole premise behind the series of seemingly-redundant layers of representation in Republicanism, be it the Electoral College or state-level governments)

TCB

 

[ofitg]

The right to keep and bear arms derives from our duty to retain the basic means necessary to defend our country and our liberty. Certainly it is true that the actual defense of our national borders is normally delegated to the professional military. But we must never think that this revocable delegation of responsibility for national defense is a transfer of ultimate responsibility. We, the people, are ultimately responsible for the defense of country and liberty, and the Second Amendment is crucial to our performance of that duty.

The presence of the Second Amendment in our Constitution reflects the history of the emergence of self-government in the modern world. One key impediment to the assertion of the political rights of the common man throughout much of history was that military conflict was usually left to a professional elite. Until common people were able to get on battlefields and defend themselves, they left that defense to professional classes of warriors. Inevitably, or at least naturally, such warriors became the rulers of the people whose country they defended.

Our Founding Fathers understood that leaving matters of defense entirely in the hands of a professional military class was inconsistent with self-government. The American Founding was a decisive break with the old European order in many ways, but the care our Founders took to ensure an armed citizenry is one of the most striking. Indeed, the formal Constitutional guarantee that the sovereignty of the people would be defended by that people themselves, and with their own weapons, is a kind of condensed summary of the entire doctrine of self-government on which the nation is founded.

For this reason, it is a matter of clear national interest that we make sure that our citizens understand the meaning of their Second Amendment rights — indeed, their Second Amendment duties. It is difficult to see how any citizen could have a clear understanding of his general civic responsibilities if he does not understand the fundamental duty he bears to join with his fellow citizens at all times in remaining vigilant to any threats to liberty. And it is difficult to see how he could understand this if he is allowed to come of age with a hostile or trivial view of the Second Amendment.

When the first U.S. Congress met and turned to defense measures in 1791, Representative Jackson argued: “The inhabitants of Switzerland emancipated themselves by the establishment of a militia, which finally delivered them from the tyranny of their lords.” A law was passed requiring every able-bodied citizen to provide himself with a firearm and enroll in the militia, and it stayed on the books for over a century.

https://itistreason.wordpress.com/2011/02/27/the-swiss-militia-a-model-for-america/

 

[AlexanderA]

In short, it's all about defense, and always has been, and will only ever be.

Exactly. The 2nd Amendment has nothing to do with hunting, or recreational uses. Therefore, the "sporting purpose" standard written into current law (regarding imports, for example) is a complete red herring, and should not be there at all. It needs to be removed either legislatively or judicially.

 

[yokel]

At the time the Constitution was adopted Americans generally possessed small arms for personal defense or sustenance. Thanks to their experience during the Revolution, they did not suffer the delusion that, against highly trained and experienced armed forces, such arms are, by themselves, sufficient to secure the basic rights which constitute the state or condition of a free people. From the outset of their war for independence they had undertaken to organize and prepare armed forces able to hold their own against the British regulars. But the early battles of the Revolution, and the frontier conflicts and wars they had endured before that, showed them that an armed populace, with and the hardy disposition needed to make use of their arms in an emergency, could make the difference between families or settlements that held out against attack until help arrived, and those that were wiped out. Able-bodied people familiar with the use of arms (the militia, properly so-called) were often essential when it came to securing the most essential, but often most elusive commodity in war, which is time.