When do we use the 2nd Amendment

[Officers'Wife]

It is not the right of an angry, barely literate rabble to run amok over the unexamined hearsay spoonfed them by a group of billionaires who have a vested interest in making sure no one can work toward the common good

Does that mean the Declaration of Independence is null & void?

 

[oldpuppymax]

The 2nd amendment recognizes the God given right to keep and bear arms. And YES, it is God given, as are the rights of freedom of speech, of religion, of assembly, etc. No God given right can be GRANTED by government/men OR taken away. The left has worked for decades to disarm the American people because it is both very difficult AND very dangerous to attempt to enslave and armed citizenry. The amendment was specifically included in our Constitution for the purpose of making sure the PEOPLE had the means to defend the nation from attack AND defend their rights against a criminal/tyrannical state. The left will eventually overturn our right to keep and bear arms, probably by indirect means. These are people who cannot help themselves. On that day, we'll know if the US is meant to continue on by the number of actual Americans who take up arms and march on DC.

 

[Ed Ames]

everyone has the right to kill whomever they wish or think is a threat or has something they want

LOL...no, that's as laughable a stretch as thinking that "bear arms" means to carry them.

You keep trying to read a description from the name. It's like trying to deconstruct "Alfred Spangler" into, "A Red span". Yeah, the words are there, but a name is representation, a symbol, not definition, and what a name represents often has little connection to the words that make up the name.

Why would the same people use "bear arms" in one document to mean what everyone since Aristotle has meant by the phrase, but in another mean, "it means you can carry them, but not actually pull the trigger"? The founding fathers had, in living memory, personally exercised their individual right to bear arms in the common sense of the phrase. Not, "to carry them but not pull the trigger", not, "to transport them", but, "to take them up and use them, killing and wounding people in the process", and they did it against the rightful government of their lands. They KNEW exactly what that right was. They had lived it, exercised it, and were only writing a constitution because they had done so.

The founding fathers would have been deeply offended to hear you describe their exercise of that right, their revolution, as, "kill[ing] whomever they wish or think is a threat or has something they want." I'm a bit offended that you think of them in those terms myself.

The right, as they saw it, was integral to the natural rights of free men. Which means it was something akin to (but more extensive than) our current conception of the right to self defense. They were within their rights to bear arms against the king because the king was doing them identifiable harm. They were not within their rights to bear arms against a farmer with better land because the farmer wasn't harming them, even if the farmer had it better than they did.

And they knew that the people, in other words you and me, is kept in check by different forces than a government. They required an act of congress for the GOVERNMENT to call forth the Militia. Given their general trust of government exercise of power, why is that surprising to you? The government always requires extra checks and oversight because government concentrates power. It takes an act of congress for the government to do things you are fully in your right to do this very minute with no oversight whatsoever, because the government can coerce where you and I can only discuss and trade.

I won't claim to know the full breadth of whatever the founding fathers were naming when they named that right. I suspect, based on alternate wordings and arguments from the day that there was a fair amount of disagreement at the time and they named the right instead of using the sort of wording found in most of the BoR very specifically to punt the issue on to succeeding generations. I'm not even sure it's relevant what they thought, except that they were smart people and their views certainly carry weight even today. The important thing today is to define what we mean, a consensus of what that right is today, that is as broad and generally beneficial as possible.

But, to be somewhat fair to your point of view... the founding fathers were known to duel...pistols at dawn sort of duel. So yeah, they saw themselves as having a certain right to commit what, if it happened today, would be considered murder, within very clear and well known limits.

 

[RC45]

I stumbled upon your fine board this afternoon and felt compelled to join up to offer my humble opinion on this topic.

The thread topic is "When do we use the 2nd Amendment" - as an immigrant to the USA (been here 14, no 15 years this January) I have noticed quite a change over the last 15 years, and I am sure those that others in their middle age whom where born here have seen evenmore change.

I have seen changes that have both furthered and changes that have restricted the RKBA - but one thing is certain, if you don't collectively fight by way of legislation and protest to maintain your RKBA then by the time you might feel compelled to excercise that right in practice (not to overthrow the government, but "recall" it) it will be too late.

I think many times those that are born and raised in the USA do not always understand how important and valued the RKBA is, and they (some, not all obviously) often forget that a complacent citizenry can lose that right in a blink of an eye.

In summation, my opinion is that the day you are compelled by law to turn over your guns that is the day you excercise your 2nd Amendment right.

I don't know about the rest of you, but "they" will face resistance when they come calling at this Texas address...

 

[ConstitutionCowboy]

Aha! Now I've got you!

In the Constitution the Founding Fathers capitalized all nouns, and all proper nouns in the first ten amendments to it called the Bill of Rights. "... (t)he right of the people to keep and bear..." is not capitalized, ergo, "keep" and "bear" are not the name of the right as scribed in the Second Amendment but the names of the functions that government is prohibited to infringe upon. As words are a means to meaning, it is clear what the prohibition in the Second Amendment is.

It is true that the accepted name of the right is the Right of the People to Keep and Bear Arms, and in its case the name fits to a "T". What you describe are things like the Patriot Act. Just as a rose by any other name will smell as sweet, so will Pepe LePew stink under the name of Peter Chanel the Fifth.

I can see by the rest of your post that you believe the Constitution is a living, breathing document that changes with the times.

The founding fathers would have been deeply offended to hear you describe their exercise of that right, their revolution, as, "kill[ing] whomever they wish or think is a threat or has something they want." I'm a bit offended that you think of them in those terms myself.

I'm offended that you take me out of context and that you insult the intelligence of anyone who reads what you've written with your out of context implications. The Founding generation went far beyond their right to keep and bear arms. They exercised their right to throw off a despotic government. That's the right that should be discussed when talking of the issues being brought up here. The uninfringed Right to Keep and Bear Arms makes it possible for us to exercise that right to throw off a despotic government.

Woody

 

[Ed Ames]

I can see by the rest of your post that you believe the Constitution is a iving, breathing document that changes with the times

But are you seeing what is there? You have misunderstood (misrepresented?) my positions pretty consistently so far. What do you think has changed?

I think the constitution was written by a bunch of intelligent and careful people who were not afraid to speak in absolutes. "Congress shall make no law..." type absolutes. They did so in many areas... but they refrained in this case. In doing so, they pushed the burden of carrying that argument to each succeeding generation and made that portion of their document subject to interpretation. Did they mean to? Who knows? They did it, and whether you want to call the constition living or not we've got to live with the results.

That doesn't mean the constitution is a living document (or not)...it means that we are compelled to argue definitions because of how they wrote the 2nd. Play the hand you are dealt.

As for you taking offense...I don't see where you have grounds. Bearing arms has the same meaning in the constitution as the declaration of independence. You, in attempting to twist the meaning of that term to suit your politics, took it to a place you didn't want to go. Don't act as though that's somehow my fault or I'm taking you out of context. I lack the power to delete or change your posts so I can't take away the context, and you said what you said.


Now, to address the substance of your noun counter... "the man with a gun" is not a noun, but it is an identification of something rather than a description. The right to ______ is likewise not a noun (though it may contain nouns) but an identifier of some understood externally defined thing.

 

[LemmyCaution]

Does that mean the Declaration of Independence is null & void?

The Declaration of Independence does not grant nor guarantee any rights in any known legal sense. It is an interesting historical document, but it is not the basis of law in the United States, much as one might wish it so. Let's not disingenuously conflate it with the 2nd Amendment.

 

[LemmyCaution]

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

It's instructive to me that not one person in this thread, thus far, has made any mention of the notion that a 'well regulated militia' might have any use for defending against external enemies. The entire tenor of the thread suggests that the sole purpose of the 2A is to root out what the correspondents here believe to be the oppression of the very government defined by the founding documents- in other words an internal enemy. We've become obsessed with definitions of 'real Americans' and purity tests. There is a perpetually aggrieved and fearful minority in this country that defines itself not by what it believes, positively, but rather in distinction from what it doesn't believe. It has no identity other than how it defines its enemies and is always looking under every rock for another chance to project its paranoia and insecurity on some perceived outsider that is a threat to the tribe.

It is for this reason that this group cares only for the 2A and none of the others. They belittle the other amendments in the Bill of Rights, or see them only as a means of reinforcing 2A. Some actually lament the 1A. They were nowhere to be seen as the unitary executive eviscerated the 4A by authorizing wholesale surveillance of all domestic communication. When others protested, this group was the first to declare that the protesters were 'on the terrorists' side' and crowed 'If you've nothing to hide, you've nothing to fear.' Likewise with torture and detention without trial- things that should be anathema to anyone who would carry the name 'American.' These people whine about the use of the word 'alleged' in news reports, as if due process were the last refuge of cheese eating surrender monkeys, as if the republic would fall if we presumed that a moron with explosives in his shorts was innocent until proven guilty beyond all reasonable doubt by a jury of his peers. Exactly who are the cowards in this narrative?

Why would one privilege the 2A over all others? It certainly has done nothing to defend the others against the relentless assaults they've been under for the last ten years, regardless of the aphoristic pretensions in that regard. I suspect that certain of us value the 2A simply as the guarantee that we will have the tools we need to do violence to our fellow countrymen someday, and are salivating at the thought of gaining the excuse, with their constant coy questioning of whether or not 'it's time.'

When it does become 'time,' I hope you all realize that it's also the end of the American experiment.

I'm very afraid of what comes after that.

 

[Ed Ames]

It is for this reason that this group cares only for the 2A and none of the others.

Lemmy, what on earth are you talking about? You can't possibly defend that assertion, and it's such a glaring and ignorant error that it diminishes the value of anything else you could write.

 

[Shadow Man]

The Declaration of Independence does not grant nor guarantee any rights in any known legal sense. It is an interesting historical document, but it is not the basis of law in the United States, much as one might wish it so. Let's not disingenuously conflate it with the 2nd Amendment.

This country was founded upon three principles; that of a Declaration of Independance, an Alliance with Foreign Powers, and a Confederation of Law (Constitution). Each is equally important, and, like a three legged stool, the United States cannot stand without all three.

 

[LemmyCaution]

This country was founded upon three principles; that of a Declaration of Independance, an Alliance with Foreign Powers, and a Confederation of Law (Constitution). Each is equally important, and, like a three legged stool, the United States cannot stand without all three.

Very possibly. However, the subject is 'Use of the 2A,' not cobbling together an excuse for sedition from cherry picked excerpts of the founding documents.

 

[Shadow Man]

I was in no way using it to cobble together an excuse for anything. Stop jumping to conclusions, or putting words in my posts. I was merely pointing out to you that it was not simply an "interesting historical document".

As for "cherry picking" parts of the documents, how else are we to use them? Look at them as a whole? That really works...if you cannot look at individual parts of the documents that pertain to your specific question, then what is the point of referring to the documents at all? No, they are not meant to be looked at as a whole, thats why there are subsets, sections, clauses, etc.

Go back and re-read (assuming you read them at all) some of my previous posts. I think I made it very clear that I was in no way suggesting rebellion, or looking for an excuse. Don't put the blasted cart before the horse.

 

[Gungnir]

It is for this reason that this group cares only for the 2A and none of the others.

Au Contraire mon Frere, we care about the 2nd because it is the teeth behind the other 9.

I care about the 1st because it lets me write things like here, and petition my senator, and protest peaceably.

I care about the 3rd because I used to be a squaddie and I don't want a bunch of them hanging out at my place without some form of compensation.

I care about they 4th because I want to keep my stuff, and don't want any government official digging through it without cause.

I care about the 5th because I don't know what the police know if I'm arrested, so I'd like to keep my own counsel until I do.

I care about the 6th because if I exercise the 5th, I can have someone come and help me out.

I care about the 7th because it is better to be quickly judged by 12 of my peers than some magistrate who couldn't care less about me, and just wants to get home to his wife and kids.

I care about the 8th because when I'm exercising the 5th I don't want someone to waterboard me or use thumbscrews, nor demand $20 million bail for a traffic ticket.

I care about the 9th just because something isn't written down in the others it doesn't mean that I don't have a right to it.

I care about the 10th, because I believe that minimal federal government is a good thing, and that states have unique issues and problems that cannot be dealt with on a federal level.

Mostly I care about the 2nd because without some form of physical defense the other 9 are easily taken, and I cannot do anything beyond martyrdom to prevent it. If I choose martyrdom I want to make sure those taking those rights have a few martyrs of their own before I become one.

 

[jakemccoy]

As long there's at least one state that will have "shall issue" CCW permits, American citizens will not be utilizing the Second Amendment to revolt against the powers that be. I say this because every time somebody has an issue with the laws in their state, the standard response to that person is "move to [such-in-such] state". People who make such a recommendation are usually the same people who want to know "when do we use the 2nd Amendment?"

If you're itching for the opportunity, then get your boys and move to a state like New York, Illinois or California and have at it. No, you're not going to do it. Quick, think of some clever rationale why you're not going to do it. You're just not going to do it - not now, not in the future.

So, keep going to the range, pay your NRA membership, write your lawmakers, dress nicely, practice gun safety, abide by laws, educate people about lawful gun ownership and recruit one anti-gun person to become a gun owner. If ALL gun owners did these simple things, the answer to the original question is we'll never have to fire a single shot to fight the powers that be in America.

 

[LemmyCaution]

Amen, Jake McCoy.

 

[ConstitutionCowboy]

I think the constitution was written by a bunch of intelligent and careful people who were not afraid to speak in absolutes. "Congress shall make no law..." type absolutes. They did so in many areas... but they refrained in this case.

"Shall not be infringed" is as absolute as it gets. "... to keep and bear arms, ..." is just as absolute. The only wiggle room you're going to find in the Second Amendment is what gets interpolated into it or through malapropism of its words. You may dissemble all you wish, but it won't change what the second Amendment clearly dictates in plain English.

They did so in many areas... but they refrained in this case. In doing so, they pushed the burden of carrying that argument to each succeeding generation and made that portion of their document subject to interpretation. Did they mean to? Who knows?

I know. I know they didn't make it subject to interpretation. If they had, they would have written it in vague terms and left instructions telling succeeding generations to interpret it as they see fit. In the second place, they wouldn't have left it up to interpretation due to their mistrust of government. And, I've found nothing in the Founding Father's writings that would indicate any desire to leave the Second Amendment up to interpretation.

They were not within their rights to bear arms against a farmer with better land because the farmer wasn't harming them, even if the farmer had it better than they did.

That is without question. But if your interpretation of "bear Arms" includes using those arms, and consequently using those arms cannot be infringed, what is to stop anyone from shooting the farmer for his land? The only reason people try to include using arms as part of "bear" in the Second Amendment is so they can claim the Right to Keep and Bear Arms is not without limit and thereby justify placing "reasonable restrictions" on the right to keep and bear arms. Without "use" involved, just as the Second Amendment stands, there is no "excuse" to infringe the right. Reasonable restrictions can be placed on the USE of arms, and that would not infringe the RKBA.

As I said in an earlier post, you can bear arms in peace and in war. When you go beyond keep and bear, you enter whole new realms such as criminal activity; self defense; defense of the nation; defense against or throwing off tyranny, despots, and dictators; sports; hunting; etc. etc.


Taking me out of context is when you extract this ...

everyone has the right to kill whomever they wish or think is a threat or has something they want

...out of this ...

If your interpretation is true, everyone has the right to kill whomever they wish or think is a threat or has something they want. We bear arms in peace as well as in war. "Bear" takes you right up to the point you pull the trigger. Even after you pull the trigger, you are still bearing, but now you are using the arms you bear to kill. We don't keep and bear harm and death. We keep and bear the tool capable of harm and death.

... and make it sound like it's my idea when it's something concluded from what you have proposed.

LOL...no, that's as laughable a stretch as thinking that "bear arms" means to carry them.

"Bear arms" DOES include carrying them, but not using them. It's like I said, the only reason people try to include using arms as part of "bear" in the Second Amendment is so they can claim the Right to Keep and Bear Arms is not without limit and thereby place "reasonable restrictions" on the right to keep and bear arms in defiance of the Second Amendment.

Woody

 

[Ed Ames]

Cowboy, I see the problem.

You seem to think that rights only exist if they cannot come into conflict with other rights...that if ANY exercise of my right would conflict with someone else's rights then it can't be a right. That's absurd. I have a right to a speedy trial even if my getting a quick trial slows down someone else's trial.

That, and you think you are playing a game and people are trying to trap you.

...the only reason people try to include using arms as part of "bear" in the Second Amendment is so they can claim the Right to Keep and Bear Arms is not without limit and thereby place "reasonable restrictions" on the right to keep and bear arms in defiance of the Second Amendment.

Categorically false. I use the standard meaning of "bear arms" (which is primarily use) because I have that right. I'm not trying to trap you or claim the right is not without limit. Quite the opposite, I'm saying that YOU are limiting the definition of the right for your own political reasons.

I have a right to be part of a militia. I have a right to join a private mercenary force. I have a right to go to central America as a soldier of fortune. I have a right to offer my services to the US military. I have, in short, a RIGHT to bear arms. Not limited to carrying them, not some twisted out of context "we'll only look at bear instead of bear arms" right to bearing as a burden. A right to take up arms.

That's the right every American (male) had in 1800, and I don't care for your attempt to take it away from me through some narrow and twisted interpretation of "bear" that is completely out of context.

The fact that I have a right doesn't mean my right trumps everyone else's rights. It doesn't mean I can't be prosecuted for the consequences of exercising my rights if those consequences result in a wrongful homicide or even property damage. I can be, just like a soldier in the USMC can be, because the presence of a right doesn't remove other rights, even if both rights can come into conflict.

Re: out of context quoting. You seem to like it, given your fixation on the single word "bear" instead of "bear arms", but the words are "bear arms". "Bear arms" means take up arms. It was used by the authors of the declaration of independence, and the bill of rights, and you are saying that to take up arms means, "to kill whomever they wish or think is a threat or has something they want". That's your statement, and not some twisting by me. And, given that the founding fathers took up (bore) arms, that's what you are saying they did.

 

[mack]

I didn't read any posts in this thread that suggested that people start engaging in armed rebellion, nor did I read any posts in which the author seemed to be itching to engage in said conflict.

I highly doubt that should such a situation occur that the citizens would be the first to resort to arms, history seems to suggest that governments that become oppressive resort to armed violence against the people first.

Since this is a firearms forum, people do tend to focus on guns and on the second amendment as it does concern the keeping and bearing of arms.

However, that does not imply that individuals do not care equally if not more about other rights. The topic of this thread is about the second amendment so that too could explain the focus?

Yes, the second amendment does serve the function of providing for an militia force, by protecting the individuals right to keep and bear arms, and that force can be used in defense of foreign assaults. And in fact it could well be argued that the unorganized militia has played a huge role in defending this country from terrorist attack - as after the fourth plane went down short of its target due to the unorganized militia it was obvious to the terrorists that such an attack would not work again. Maybe blow a plane up, but they weren't going to be able to take one over and fly it into a high value target.

Still, given the power of the existent standing armed forces and the organized militia - no conventional armed invasion of the US is feasible at this time or in the foreseeable future - and the Continental US has not faced a serious or even plausible threat for real invasion since WWII. Even then the chances were remote.

Therefore people tend at this juncture in our history to be more concerned with the possibility of domestic enemies as a threat to their liberty. And the only armed defense against that is the unorganized militia. But I addressed that in more detail in prior posts to this thread, including a mention of the importance of guarding all our rights.

If one honestly looks at the number of people deprived of their liberty and killed this past century - the vast majority were not the victims of war or foreign invasion - they were victims of their own governments.

As the old saying goes, freedom is not free and it is the duty of each of us to work to ensure that we retain or expand that freedom for our posterity. Doing nothing is a sure way to lose it. We do something by using the soapbox, the ballot box, the jury box, and if need be the cartridge box.

"As nightfall does not come all at once, neither does oppression. In both instances, there is a twilight when everything remains seemingly unchanged. And it is in such a twilight that we all must be aware of change in the air—however slight—lest we become unwilling victims of the darkness." Justice William O. Douglas

Lastly, I agree that the Declaration of Independence has no standing in law. It is more important than that, it is the foundational document of our nation. It is the spiritual foundation that set the structure upon which our Constitution and the Bill of Rights rest.

 

[the iron horse]

"If one honestly looks at the number of people deprived of their liberty and killed this past century - the vast majority were not the victims of war or foreign invasion - they were victims of their own governments."


That is why I have voted Libertarian since the early 90s.

 

[mack]

RC45 - thank you for your perspective - and welcome to THR.

 

[ConstitutionCowboy]

Alright Ed. Give me some back-up to your claim that "bear arms" equals "take up arms" beyond your personal definition of the word "bear" or the phrase "bear arms".

I'm saying that YOU are limiting the definition of the right for your own political reasons.

I'm using the definitions of the words as defined in Johnson's Dictionary of the English Language, 1755. I can find no definition in that dictionary or any others commonly used in that period that would include "use" or "take up" in any definition of "bear" or "to bear".

You seem to think that rights only exist if they cannot come into conflict with other rights...that if ANY exercise of my right would conflict with someone else's rights then it can't be a right. That's absurd. I have a right to a speedy trial even if my getting a quick trial slows down someone else's trial.

Poor example. Even if your trial slows mine down, both might still be considered speedy. And besides, what does this have to do with the topic at hand? It's bad enough that you move goal posts, must you also kick the ball to another field as well?

Categorically false. I use the standard meaning of "bear arms" (which is primarily use) because I have that right.

As I asked, please show me where you get that definition.

Re: out of context quoting. You seem to like it, given your fixation on the single word "bear" instead of "bear arms", but the words are "bear arms". "Bear arms" means take up arms. It was used by the authors of the declaration of independence, and the bill of rights, and you are saying that to take up arms means, "to kill whomever they wish or think is a threat or has something they want". That's your statement, and not some twisting by me. And, given that the founding fathers took up (bore) arms, that's what you are saying they did.

"to kill whomever they wish or think is a threat or has something they want".

I've never claimed that. It's what you imply by including the use of arms in the RKBA that cannot be infringed. If the use of arms cannot be infringed, there is nothing government can do to stop any use or consequence of the use of arms. It's just plain silly.

Know why a law that says you cannot fire your guns in the middle of town except in self defense is not unconstitutional? Because the Second Amendment doesn't cover the use of arms.

We've drifted fairly far off topic. So, just to repeat my answer to the OP's question: You use the Second Amendment in court when your right to keep and bear arms has been infringed.

Woody

 

[gunsandreligion]

But, hso, that's no fun! Why, when I'm prepping for the revolution, it means I can go out in the woods and wear camouflage and run around with my Mosin Nagant and pretend to be a hero!

LOL

 

[Ed Ames]

Alright Ed. Give me some back-up to your claim that "bear arms" equals "take up arms" beyond your personal definition of the word "bear" or the phrase "bear arms".

"Bear Arms"

Merriam Webster: "to serve as a soldier"

Collins: "to serve in the armed forces"

American Biographical dictionary (1857): "In 1781 he was required by the British commander to bear arms or to return to Charleston; ... "

American Declaration of Independence: "He has constrained our fellow citizens taken captive on the high seas to bear arms against their country, to become the executioners of their friends and brethren, or to fall themselves by their hands. "

Oxford English Dictionary: ""to serve as a soldier, do military service, fight," Circa 1330

A Dictionary of Christian Antiquities... Vol 2 (1880): "...in answering the question of Celsus why Christians do not bear arms and bring help to the emperor, admits the fact that they were unwilling to take up arms and slay men..."

World Book Dictionary, Volume 1 (2003): "to serve as a soldier; fight"

Founding Faith: "The Virginia ratifying convention proposed a Bill of Rights; the nineteenth clause stated: 'That any person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms ought to be exempted, upon payment of an equivalent to employ another to bear arms in his stead.'"

Etc ad nausium.

Note that the phrase was also used outside of a military context during that period. There are many references to bearing arms in a civilian context, but those retain a similar flavor: To take up arms FOR USE. To capture the flavor: you are not bearing arms when you place an unloaded pistol in your rucksack and walk into the woods, you are bearing arms when you go into the woods with a loaded weapon intending to shoot a deer.

 

[tasco 74]

i use my 2nd amendment rights every day................

LIFE IS SHORT.....

 

[mb419]

I can't believe that this thread has nearly a 100 posts since we've heard from Justin, our incredible moderator. I guess that it has evolved into too much of an intellectual discussion for his sarcastic crap.