Understanding the 2nd amendment

[dfunde01]

While doing some research on the federalists papers influence on the 2nd amendment I ran across the following site. It provides what I think is a great explanation of the 2nd amendment and provides links to other strong pro arguments. I am surprised that I had not run across this group before.

http://jpfo.org/filegen-n-z/six-about-2nd.htm

 

[BHP FAN]

here's my favorite. I wish I could make it a sticky, but instead I just quote it whenever it's applicable, which is most of the time.

http://www.jewishworldreview.com/julia/gorin030802.asp

 

[230RN]

I put together my own "Six Things" for a fence-sitter friend of mine who <whisper> doesn't really know what the Second Amendment is all about. After a little discussion with him, I sent him this e-mail:

Well, regarding our converstation this afternoon, I think we can agree on the following:

1. Any dictator, in order to achieve power, must eliminate any opposition.

2. To eliminate this opposition, he must reduce and remove the availability of arms from everyone but his loyal police and military. (As when an English king outlawed the English Longbow since it would penetrate a knight's armor, and when the Pope "outlawed" crossbows.)

3. To reduce and remove the availability of arms, he usually must proceed in gradual steps.

4. These steps involve registration, permitting, and other restrictions of arms capable of opposing his regime in various ways. This includes "demonizing" those who would own arms for whatever purpose, whether they "need" them or not.

5. Registration, permitting, and other restrictions ultimately (proven throughout history) result in the confiscation of arms.

6. Step 5 finally allows Step 1 to be accomplished.

The end result is:

http://jpfo.org/filegen-a-m/deathgc.htm#chart

No reaction as yet.

Terry, 230RN

 

[Manco]

Great links--all very insightful.

here's my favorite. I wish I could make it a sticky, but instead I just quote it whenever it's applicable, which is most of the time.

http://www.jewishworldreview.com/julia/gorin030802.asp

This does seem to ring true in many if not most cases. Such emasculation and lack of self-reliance obviously leads toward dependence on the government for all security and many other needs--they want to be cared for and coddled by their "big brother." How much of this is due to nature versus nurture, though? I bet that both play a role, as usual, but also that modern society is contributing more and more to the emasculation of American males--now only the most naturally (genetically) strong and independent who have the best parents can escape, well, failure to become grown men.

Some may argue that this is off-topic, but I think that this type of societal influence contributes heavily to the seemingly unshakable anti-gun sentiment of many people, males in particular. In the past, we could always rely on a majority of adult men to at least be self-reliant to a degree, but now it seems that women are more self-reliant overall (another reason we need to recruit more of them into our gun culture--they're definitely underrepresented).

For those in other countries who may not be familiar with what is happening to American males, as a group we are currently on an asymptotic path, if you will, toward the following example (movie clip):

http://nikkorea.multiply.com/video/item/41

 

[Impureclient]

Crazy. As I type this, I have the jpfo.org site in a tab right now in my browser. I came upon it yesterday and thought it was so well thought out. I didn't save it yet for future use, so its still left open.

 

[JRH6856]

Under the SECOND sec b., the jpfo site says:

"The Second Amendment confines Congress’s power by guaranteeing that the Congress cannot “govern” the militias right out of existence and thereby disarm “the people.”"

It has this backwards. The Second Amendment confines Congress's power by guaranteeing that the Congress cannot disarm the people and thereby govern the militias out of existence.

 

[zorro45]

Our local school schools begin the indoctrination process by punishing both students involved in an altercation. The initial aggressor and the kid who fights back. They actually encourage the kids to let someone pound the snot out of them and not to respond or they will be suspended. In the Zorro household, all the little Zorros, .22,.25, .38 and 9mm have been taught that if they are going to catch a 3 day suspension anyway, they better make sure the bully learns a lesson and doesn't do it again. Proportionate response. Once you indoctrinate the kids in school that self-defense is not OK, then it is not such a stretch for them to accept this as adults.

 

[zorro45]

BHP Fan: Yes, one Taniqua Hall is too many. So is one Kitty Genovese. So is the Petit family tragedy in Cheshire. Don't plan to be a victim, and avoid living in a place that forces you to be either a victim or a criminal.

 

[Ms_Dragon]

So, when's the revolution starting?

 

[Manco]

So, when's the revolution starting?

The last one started when they tried to take away our means of defense, which is precisely why there is an air of revolution around here. Let's do all that we can to make sure that it does not get to that point in the first place.

 

[mbt2001]

I see a lot of the Founder's being quoted on militia's and how that goes hand in hand with the 2nd Amendment. I do not think that is what they were saying, that is to say, I do not think that they were speaking about the 2nd Amendment in that manner. I think they were talking about the Army, specifically, a standing army and that since the Militia is made up of the people, not mercenaries and convicts or foreign troops, it limits the dangers of the military.

I think that the 2nd Amendment was saying that while we need an army, the people's RKBA will not be messed with. Considering that the revolution started over the Brit's trying to disarm people. At least, that is my take. I agree that there are a few alternate readings, all of them lend themselves to the idea that the people have a RIGHT to keep and bear arms.

 

[EBK]

So, when's the revolution starting?

Its not a Revolution its a Resotration!

 

[EBK]

I see a lot of the Founder's being quoted on militia's and how that goes hand in hand with the 2nd Amendment. I do not think that is what they were saying, that is to say, I do not think that they were speaking about the 2nd Amendment in that manner. I think they were talking about the Army, specifically, a standing army and that since the Militia is made up of the people, not mercenaries and convicts or foreign troops, it limits the dangers of the military.

I think that the 2nd Amendment was saying that while we need an army, the people's RKBA will not be messed with. Considering that the revolution started over the Brit's trying to disarm people. At least, that is my take. I agree that there are a few alternate readings, all of them lend themselves to the idea that the people have a RIGHT to keep and bear arms.

Incorrect. Please read the milita act of 1903.

It clearly states that the people who are not in the national guard are THE RESERVE MILITIA. Therefore it is our duty to own military serviceable Firearms.

 

[Manco]

I think that the 2nd Amendment was saying that while we need an army, the people's RKBA will not be messed with.

I think that they drew a solid line between militia and standing army--more so than today, if anything. When they said militia, they meant a militia of the people, not a standing army. While the militia is given as a justification, the right of the people to keep and bear arms stands on its own. This is because they recognized that we all have the natural right of self-defense anyway, and they did not wish to imply that the militia was the only justification (such an interpretation does not follow from how the Second Amendment is written). Technically, it did not need to be mentioned, just like the entire Second Amendment, but obviously they felt that both were important--and potentially threatened--enough to be mentioned explicitly.

Now, as for the militia justification, that is more subject to interpretation than the rest ("shall not be infringed" says it all). If we emphasize the "security" aspect, then the militia is intended to secure the state from outside enemies. The Founders deplored standing armies (in part because they distrusted government), so this was the only practical way to continually defend the nation's sovereignty. On the other hand, if we note that the text refers to a "free" state, this could be interpreted as the militia defending the nation from government tyranny--the enemy within. I seriously doubt that such a thought was far from the minds of those who had just rebelled and won their independence from their former government in Great Britain. The underlying principle is always that the power resides in the people, and since arms constitute real, physical power, then the people must have the right to keep and bear arms.

Considering that the revolution started over the Brit's trying to disarm people. At least, that is my take.

The government of Great Britain was also the government of its colonies, and those we now call the Founders were protecting the interests of the British colonies in America from the tyranny of their own government. If there were any gun control they would have supported, it would have been to severely limit the size and strength of any standing army or military force commanded by the subsequent US government, so that the people--the militia--would always be more powerful. Clearly they had a lot of practical wisdom that the majority of people today sorely lack (I don't mean you, I mean the antis and anybody who directly or indirectly supports big government).

 

[brolin_1911a1]

One of the better treatises on how and why governments disarm the people.

http://www.guncite.com/journals/okslip.html