The reason for the 2nd amendment
- Thread starter RMC51
- Start date
- Status
Sam1911
Moderator Emeritus
Please provide a description or explanation of what you're linking to when posting a link.
I beleive that the 2nd Amend is not for the right to have guns to deer, duck hunt. The 2nd Amend is for the people to protect themselves from the the goverment.
The first post is an example of why we need to protect ourselves.
This video is some backup to that.
We are Preparing for Massive Civil War, Says DHS Informant .
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nXg2WsNCrW4
The first post is an example of why we need to protect ourselves.
This video is some backup to that.
We are Preparing for Massive Civil War, Says DHS Informant .
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nXg2WsNCrW4
Jorg Nysgerrig
Member
- Joined
- Apr 13, 2006
- Messages
- 7,822
And straight to unsubstantiated conspiracy theory lunacy.
more complete position statement
I beleive that the 2nd Amend is not for the right to have guns to deer, duck hunt etc. and that is the arguement that the left keeps trying to make, or change the conversaion to.
I beleive that the 2nd Amend is for the people to protect themselves from the government. It is the 2nd amendment because it is that IMPORTANT, right behind the first amendment.
The first post is an example of why we need to protect ourselves.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&v=...ture=endscreen
This video is some backup to that.
We are Preparing for Massive Civil War, Says DHS Informant .
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nXg2WsNCrW4
I beleive that the 2nd Amend is not for the right to have guns to deer, duck hunt etc. and that is the arguement that the left keeps trying to make, or change the conversaion to.
I beleive that the 2nd Amend is for the people to protect themselves from the government. It is the 2nd amendment because it is that IMPORTANT, right behind the first amendment.
The first post is an example of why we need to protect ourselves.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&v=...ture=endscreen
This video is some backup to that.
We are Preparing for Massive Civil War, Says DHS Informant .
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nXg2WsNCrW4
RMC51 said:
In many ways the Second Amendment has a very long and complex history. It's not as if the Founders all woke up on morning and decided that it would be a good idea for ordinary, honest citizens to be armed.
During the several hundred years prior to the adoption of the United States Constitution, it was in general widely understood and accepted English tradition that ordinary, honest people have arms to be used for, at various times and under various conditions, self defense, defense of their communities, prevention of crime and apprehension criminals, assisting in maintaining public order, defense of the nation, and (yes) hunting. Of course from the age of the Tudors through the age of the Hanovers (and beyond), at certain times some rights were circumscribed, often for one group or another, depending on who was in power.
The foregoing is covered in greater detail in Joyce Lee Malcolm's excellent book, Guns and Violence, the English Experience (Harvard University Press, 2002). I've just ordered her earlier book, To Keep and Bear Arms: The Origins of an Anglo-American Right (Harvard University Press, 1996).
And with this topic now coming up, I've been motivated to pull down from my shelves my as yet unread copy of Stephen Halbrook's The Founders' Second Amendment, Origins of the Right to Bear Arms (Ivan R. Dee, 2008).
There is a good deal of very solid scholarship by well known and highly regarded scholars like Malcolm, Halbrook, David Kople, Donald Kates, Eugene Volokh, and others of similar stature. If I'm going to want to know and understand the subject, I'll look to those worthies rather than waste my time on spurious YouTube posts.
And that video isn't backup to anything. It's just another example of unsupported, conspiracy theory drivel.RMC51 said:
As Carl Sagan said, "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. " And that video just isn't it.
blarby
Member
Frank,
Do you think the contributions to said theory contained within the Federalist Papers are sufficient explanation to those Americans who choose to read them?
Do you think the arguments set forth there are sufficient in weight to hold 2A as an irrevocable "standard" for "democracies" at large, both developing ones, and those already developed ?
One last bit, If you dont mind........ Which three paragraphs ( even paraphrased ones ) from any source that spell out this self-evident right, and its justifications in greatest and repeatable detail in our modern world, to you ?
Do you think the contributions to said theory contained within the Federalist Papers are sufficient explanation to those Americans who choose to read them?
Do you think the arguments set forth there are sufficient in weight to hold 2A as an irrevocable "standard" for "democracies" at large, both developing ones, and those already developed ?
One last bit, If you dont mind........ Which three paragraphs ( even paraphrased ones ) from any source that spell out this self-evident right, and its justifications in greatest and repeatable detail in our modern world, to you ?
We have discussed at length the actual basis for the 2nd before.
It indeed was to allow the citizens to stand up to both the government and foreign invaders.
It didn't come about suddenly. There was a gradual transition over hundreds of years in English sentiments. Previously there had been something similar that allowed fuedal barons, enemies of the king in this case, to have thier own armed forces and arms for similar reasons. To be able to resist the king and his forces. The Barons were essentially protecting thier ability to resist again in the future if necessary.
That sentiment by the time of the founders hundreds of years later extended to the average person, in this new land where they specifically said nobody would have 'titles of nobility' (essentially a title that allowed some to have rights greater than others.)
Between the Magna Carta and the colonial rebellion there was also the English Bill of Rights of 1689. It granted everyone the right to arms for defense, in accordance with thier class (title of nobility comes into play there giving some more rights with arms than others.)
Rights that were severely weakened by government by the time of the colonial revolution.
This helped strengthen the belief that it was the government arms were needed to defend against, as it had been in the past.
The founders talked at length. They left many documents and letters on the views. What they drew inspiration from was also well discussed, and was strongly influenced byThomas Hobbes, John Locke, and Thomas Paine. Views on various natural rights, which included arms.
The views of the former two was a strong part of the original form of government, the Articles of Confederacy. A government with no standing army, and limited ability to raise one or to collect taxes.
The Articles of Confederacy were considered ideal for not infringing on the rights of the people, but because it failed to work as intended they felt the need to recreate the government into something stronger. But they really feared the threat to liberty this stronger government posed. They added many safeguards intended to hamper the government.
Among them was to insure the people always could pose a strong resistance to tyranny from the new government. They absolutely feared a standing army (which today would include roles filled by both the military and federal paramilitary forces) and didn't allow for one under the Articles of Confederation for just that reason, because of how England's had been used against its own people.
They also knew that by not having a powerful standing army that rivaled those common in Europe they needed additional measure to deter foreign invasion.
The right of the people to arms that could equal (and sometimes exceeded) those of the military arms of the world was felt to provide a protection. A protection against tyranny, foreign and domestic.
That however is rather different from actions of the occasional bad cop. The 2nd Amendment had more to do with resisting tyranny from a government that was imposing it, and those enforcing it. If what a bad actor is doing is not consistent with the will of the government, then it is not really related.
Which is what the first video deals with, those acting on thier own outside of the scope of what is allowed if they were in the wrong.
I didn't bother with the second video.
There is plenty of people that make a living getting others all riled up and tuning into thier next exaggeration or conspiracy on TV, radio, or internet shows. Exaggerating things, and even discrediting some real things by lumping them in with exaggerations and false things. These people are as much of a threat as anything else because they cause others to tune out even real issues, and encourage inaction over time by always giving the impression things are much worse than they are. They are like the boy who cried wolf, and so even when there is a wolf people are so used to such idiots they don't believe it. Encouraging such people is detrimental to our freedoms in the long run.
It indeed was to allow the citizens to stand up to both the government and foreign invaders.
It didn't come about suddenly. There was a gradual transition over hundreds of years in English sentiments. Previously there had been something similar that allowed fuedal barons, enemies of the king in this case, to have thier own armed forces and arms for similar reasons. To be able to resist the king and his forces. The Barons were essentially protecting thier ability to resist again in the future if necessary.
That sentiment by the time of the founders hundreds of years later extended to the average person, in this new land where they specifically said nobody would have 'titles of nobility' (essentially a title that allowed some to have rights greater than others.)
Between the Magna Carta and the colonial rebellion there was also the English Bill of Rights of 1689. It granted everyone the right to arms for defense, in accordance with thier class (title of nobility comes into play there giving some more rights with arms than others.)
Rights that were severely weakened by government by the time of the colonial revolution.
This helped strengthen the belief that it was the government arms were needed to defend against, as it had been in the past.
The founders talked at length. They left many documents and letters on the views. What they drew inspiration from was also well discussed, and was strongly influenced byThomas Hobbes, John Locke, and Thomas Paine. Views on various natural rights, which included arms.
The views of the former two was a strong part of the original form of government, the Articles of Confederacy. A government with no standing army, and limited ability to raise one or to collect taxes.
The Articles of Confederacy were considered ideal for not infringing on the rights of the people, but because it failed to work as intended they felt the need to recreate the government into something stronger. But they really feared the threat to liberty this stronger government posed. They added many safeguards intended to hamper the government.
Among them was to insure the people always could pose a strong resistance to tyranny from the new government. They absolutely feared a standing army (which today would include roles filled by both the military and federal paramilitary forces) and didn't allow for one under the Articles of Confederation for just that reason, because of how England's had been used against its own people.
They also knew that by not having a powerful standing army that rivaled those common in Europe they needed additional measure to deter foreign invasion.
The right of the people to arms that could equal (and sometimes exceeded) those of the military arms of the world was felt to provide a protection. A protection against tyranny, foreign and domestic.
That however is rather different from actions of the occasional bad cop. The 2nd Amendment had more to do with resisting tyranny from a government that was imposing it, and those enforcing it. If what a bad actor is doing is not consistent with the will of the government, then it is not really related.
Which is what the first video deals with, those acting on thier own outside of the scope of what is allowed if they were in the wrong.
I didn't bother with the second video.
There is plenty of people that make a living getting others all riled up and tuning into thier next exaggeration or conspiracy on TV, radio, or internet shows. Exaggerating things, and even discrediting some real things by lumping them in with exaggerations and false things. These people are as much of a threat as anything else because they cause others to tune out even real issues, and encourage inaction over time by always giving the impression things are much worse than they are. They are like the boy who cried wolf, and so even when there is a wolf people are so used to such idiots they don't believe it. Encouraging such people is detrimental to our freedoms in the long run.
Last edited:
Frank:
My question to you is:
If my position on this is so out of touch?
Why is there no AR15's left on the shelf for sale?
Why are all the 556/223 ammo gone? (no longer available)and 45acp, 40 and 9mm also.
Why are all the magazines for AR's AK's sold out?
I think the people in this country are more on the side of my position then yours
My question to you is:
If my position on this is so out of touch?
Why is there no AR15's left on the shelf for sale?
Why are all the 556/223 ammo gone? (no longer available)and 45acp, 40 and 9mm also.
Why are all the magazines for AR's AK's sold out?
I think the people in this country are more on the side of my position then yours
Jorg Nysgerrig
Member
- Joined
- Apr 13, 2006
- Messages
- 7,822
The same reason there were no Twinkies on the shelf when it was announced Hostess was closing. Tell the masses that they can't have something and suddenly it is essential to their way of life.
Sam1911
Moderator Emeritus
Nobody here is arguing that the the fundamental purpose of the 2nd Amendment is not as a last check against tyranny.
But that really has substantively nothing to do with the current buying panic on AR-15s. That's purely a function of folks thinking they'd better "get while the gettin's good."
The few ... and wearisomely familiar ... voices telling us the next American Revolution is at hand (again...no seriously guys, like for REAL this time!) don't equal a 100th of a percent of the panic buyers or the "gun culture" in the US.
Rail Driver
Member
It's impossible to respond to your statement effectively while remaining centered solely on RKBA, so I will simply say that I disagree, and leave it at that.
The issue of the potential for, or desire for, or need for revolution in this nation, at this time is NOT merely an RKBA issue, and cannot be addressed as such.
Sam1911
Moderator Emeritus
Oh! My goodness. Well, good luck with that.
eddism
Member
Is there information and documentation available to be viewed now with regard to the government starving its population into submission?
Sam1911
Moderator Emeritus
Uh...what? How far out there is this going to get?
And for those who might imagine that revolution is the path to liberty, I suggest that you study some history. The historical fact is that as a mechanism for promoting freedom, revolution has a really lousy track record.Rail Driver said:
To illustrate that we of course have the French Revolution. We also have the Paris Commune of 1870. How about the Russian Revolution? The Chinese Revolution that gave us Mao, perhaps? How about the ouster of Basitsa in Cuba? Pol Pot in Cambodia? Anyone know what's happening in what used to be Burma? And let's not forget Iran. Then there have been the various revolutions, often protracted, taking place with dismaying regularity in one third world country or another. The vast majority of revolutions wind up simply replacing one despot with another.
It's as if there is something inherent in the nature of a revolution that seems to most often yield a bad result. The American Revolution was unique.
Your questions are incomprehensible, lack foundation, and (as we say in court) assume facts not in evidence. So I'm simply not going to bother.blarby said:
I will note that the Federalist Papers were essays written for the express purpose of encouraging ratification of the Constitution and should be read and understood in that context.
Sam1911
Moderator Emeritus
A VERY good point.
Further, one not-to-be-underrated factor was the presence in the upper crust of American colonial society a group of HIGHLY (what would today be considered IMPOSSIBLY) educated and erudite men who were able to work together to perform almost superhuman feats of statecraft, governance, discipline, and leadership. And the greatest of those among them was a man who stepped down from the role of national leadership ... TWICE, to retire to a quiet and financially troubled private life ... in moments when the new Nation would have willingly made him King.
Do you see those leaders in our society today? If the society you see around you troubles you and you wish to hit the "reset" button, what -- PRAY TELL -- do you have any hope will arise to replace it?
If the Libertarians can't even win more than a handful of seats in all the legislatures across the nation, do you somehow believe they'll become the new governing class? Benevolent anarchy?
Last edited:
10P8TRIOT
Member
A well thought out and insightful article. Note that he acknowledges the breadth of the Second Amendment (emphasis added):10P8TRIOT said:
Art Eatman
Moderator In Memoriam
I suggest reading the Preamble to the Bill of Rights. It states the purpose of that group of Amendments to the Constitution.
Simplest put, the BOR is a defense against abuse of power by the State.
As has been said more than once, without the Second Amendment, all we'd have would be the Nine Privileges.
Simplest put, the BOR is a defense against abuse of power by the State.
As has been said more than once, without the Second Amendment, all we'd have would be the Nine Privileges.
Let's see some actual evidence to back that contention up. As Carl Sagan said, "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence."Hanshi said:
AlexanderA
Member
The Second Amendment forms the basis of a legal argument, not the basis of a public relations argument. Most Americans today don't care about militias or resistance to tyrannical governments. They have the experience of at least 150 years of functioning democracy (at least since the Civil War), and an outright governmental usurpation isn't on their radar. In fact, people advancing arguments such as resistance to tyranny are likely to be dismissed as tin-foil nuts.
Elected representatives respond to public opinion, not to constitutional or legal arguments. Just citing the Second Amendment, without more, won't get us very far.
Elected representatives respond to public opinion, not to constitutional or legal arguments. Just citing the Second Amendment, without more, won't get us very far.
- Status
