Reality Check: The very politically incorrect truth about the Second Amendment

[PT92]

While I was watching The NRA's press conference today I could not help but think that one important factor in the 2A conversation that seems to be missing is what the actual intention of the Amendment was designed to address? All we hear is that the only purpose allegedly supported by the Antis is that the 2A is simply to allow for hunting--Conversely, we almost always here the Pro-2A supporters infer that the major intention of the 2A is so that we can protect ourselves from perps (which is indeed true).

Point is that the original intent of the 2A was to protect ourselves from a Tyrannic Government that could potentially become corrupt and turn on its own people. We do not hear much discussion about this reasoning which IMO counterproductive.

Here's a three minute video that I saw last night that does a wonderful 30K foot overview of the "Real Intent of The 2A:"

http://www.fox19.com/story/20399062/the-very-politically-incorrect-truth-about-the-second-amendment

Moreover, this is what he's talking about--The Governor of New York today announcing possible gun confiscation:

http://www.infowars.com/new-york-gov-mandatory-gun-sale-to-state-and-confiscation-are-options/

--Happy Holidays

 

[SharpsDressedMan]

Another perspective? If our Founding Fathers were alive today, would they be owning "assault rifles"?

 

[SilentStalker]

Gun confiscation=instant revolution. Sorry, but to say you are going to confiscate guns will end this country as we know it and throw us into some crazy turmoil. These politicians seem to act without thinking all of the time. To even bring that up is a huge mistake on their part. I am sorry but that is just not something to discuss.

Another perspective? If our Founding Fathers wre alive today, would they be owning "assault rifles"?

Yes, I believe they would. They had the technology of their time equal to that of their foe. So, yes I believe they would and I believe that is truly what the 2nd amendment was intended for.

 

[Yo Mama]

I was just speaking with a coworker from Greece. She's older, and can remember as a child at 17 years old the government rounding up her schoolmates to shoot them. Another constant reminder, it may never happen here, but it has.

 

[mljdeckard]

Sharps -they would be owning the same arms that the military uses.

 

[PT92]

Another perspective? If our Founding Fathers wre alive today, would they be owning "assault rifles"?

My response would be absolutely in that the Founding Fathers did not stipulate in The 2A that the Militia's weapons were to be 'slightly inferior' to those of the Government.

And to state the obvious, we do not even in the very least have any sort of weaponry available to us that our LE or Military counterparts possess.

-Happy Holidays

 

[25cschaefer]

Be warned, the second link leads to a website with viruses. My computer found four viruses and trojans.

 

[PT92]

Be warned, the second link leads to a website with viruses. My computer found four viruses and trojans.

I visit the site multiple times per day (legit) and malware is not a problem--Check your AV Logs.

 

[RevolvingGarbage]

The very first time we ever allowed the federal government to have any say in what weapons we are allowed to possess, we planted the seed for eventual loss of the right. Our founding fathers saw that any infringement (that should sound familiar) by the federal government was a clear CONFLICT OF INTEREST. How can we have let them begin to tell us which arms we should have, when the whole idea of the right is that they are the entity which may one day need to be put in check by us?

Somewhere along the line, we decided to allow the fox to design the henhouse.

 

[ilbob]

Another perspective? If our Founding Fathers wre alive today, would they be owning "assault rifles"?

I think they would be owning AR15 rifles and probably full auto stuff as well.

But, we would not have 2.5 million men in the uniformed service of the US government nor another unknown number of armed paramilitary personnel and armed paramilitary "law enforcement" personnel.

They just never would have stood for the sheer numbers of armed men the federal government has accumulated. Nor would they have accepted the huge number of armed paramilitary police that states and local governments have created.

 

[wacki]

I was just speaking with a coworker from Greece. She's older, and can remember as a child at 17 years old the government rounding up her schoolmates to shoot them. Another constant reminder, it may never happen here, but it has.

when was this?

 

[ball3006]

There are really two parts to the 2A. One part addresses a milita, and the second part gives the right to the citizens to have guns. The Supreme Court has agreed....chris3

 

[CookeMonster]

Why isn't anybody arguing for gun control on our military? I'd be willing to accept whatever weapons restrictions are placed on our own military. Would the suburban soccer moms be in favor of limiting our military to revolvers? We can then use their same arguments against leaving our country defenseless.

 

[grubbylabs]

Seems to me that the Govt, could use a captain obvious on this one since it seems so blatantly clear to most people who know how to read English.

 

[AlexanderA]

I was just speaking with a coworker from Greece. She's older, and can remember as a child at 17 years old the government rounding up her schoolmates to shoot them.

By "government," she meant the Nazi occupiers and their collaborators during WWII. No Greek government has ever rounded up and shot 17-year-olds.

 

[AlexanderA]

I agree with the OP that the intent of the 2nd Amendment was to give the citizenry the means to resist a tyrannical government, by enshrining their right to arms equal to those of any standing army, but unfortunately, the Supreme Court doesn't agree with this interpretation. Justice Scalia, writing the majority opinion in the Heller case, treated the Militia Clause as a mere nullity (excess verbiage) that had no effect on the substance of the Amendment. To him, the Amendment came down to personal self-protection, and arms that went beyond that (for example, machine guns) could be prohibited as a "reasonable" exercise of governmental power.

 

[r1derbike]

Just remember the, "that would never happen here", head-in-the-sand civilians in those countries where bans, then confiscation happened.

Those citizens were deluded.

We're the government, we're here to help you!

I certainly hope that doesn't happen here. The consequences are unthinkable.

 

[oneounceload]

Another perspective? If our Founding Fathers wre alive today, would they be owning "assault rifles"?

They would be leading us in our second revolution; which would have been going since at least 2008, possibly as early as 1934...

 

[yokel]

We must constantly emphasize that the Second Amendment was not put into the Constitution by the Founders merely to allow Americans to entertain themselves with guns, defend and promote America's hunting and sporting traditions, or intimidate and deter street-level criminals and wackos.

All those who like to argue that the authors of the Second Amendment did not intend to protect the right of ordinary American citizens to own military weapons and equipment must contend with the fact that the same Congress which passed the Second Amendment also passed the Militia Act of 1792. This law required every free male between the ages of 18 and 44 to own the same type of rifle that was used by soldiers in the Revolutionary War and to own ammunition as well.

We can reasonably conclude that the Founders expected citizens to be able to have guns as good as, or better than, the standard military weapons of the time in order to wield an effective and credible conventional warfighting capability.

 

[pseudonymity]

A large part of the intent of the Amendment was to keep any federal level armed forces from forming. The formation of the Continental Army and the debt that it incurred was almost enough to break the early union, and the fact that the federal government could not raise taxes to pay off debts to Continental Army soldiers was part of the reason the Constitutional convention needed to be called in the first place.

Heller and McDonald were actually pretty surprising decisions really - the 2A originally did not keep any state from depriving any citizen of that state from the natural right to self defense and self elected government. Of course widespread disarmament across most states would have been unthinkable - every border had a number of different groups of French, English and various native groups in shifting alliances with each other and with the early Americans.

What we think of as federal government and this whole idea that a federal court decision could keep any state from applying laws is really just a post Civil War and 14A view. They really should have changed the name of the US after the reconstruction, because it really is not the same system of government that was in place during colonial times.

 

[mr.trooper]

Gun confiscation=instant revolution. Sorry, but to say you are going to confiscate guns will end this country as we know it and throw us into some crazy turmoil. These politicians seem to act without thinking all of the time.

Agreed. They don't think about anything other than political points - that is why we need to watch out. If they get the chance, these fools will pass just that kind of legislation.

Don't believe me? Go to Midway, or any of the other online vendors. It is NOT just AR rifles and magazines that are sold out: magazine pouches, bandoliers, bayonets, compasses, GPS units, 2 way radios, combat knives, tactical flashlights, freeze dried food, even surgical kits and military trauma kits are sold out.

People are not just gearing up for an AWB, they are gearing up for action. It seems that the rattlesnake is coiling and preparing to strike.

 

[yokel]

In D.C. v. Heller Justice Scalia writes that “when able-bodied men of a nation are trained in arms and organized, they are better able to resist tyranny.” Maj. Op. at 25

Justice Antonin Scalia’s majority opinion in Heller revisits that "ideal of a citizens' militia" theme in reviewing efforts by George III's government to disarm American colonists (pg. 21). Discussing the ancient origins of the right, Scalia notes that "the Stuart Kings Charles II and James II succeeded in using select militias loyal to them to suppress political dissidents, in part by disarming their opponents" (pg. 19).

So-called "assault weapons" are selected for prohibition because gun-control and confiscation exponents claim that the rifles are "weapons of war." This claim, if true, amounts to an admission that the rifles lie at the core of the Second Amendment.

 

[FROGO207]

They are not fools and and can see that the very tools that we are allowed to posses could ultimately be their undoing. That, they do not want to visit.

 

[d2wing]

Good link, I agree with it. It is the only sensible way to read the 2a, but we know what the government including courts do with sensible.

 

[krupparms]

I don't have my information on this as I am moving. If I remember right the U.S.CODES State that militia are to be issued weapons of current military pattern. But they can be found in the U.S.codes covering the unorganized militia. That would lead us to believe that would mean M16s, ect. The country was a Repubic not a Democracy! A Democracy always leads to tyranny! Read history!