They are taking our guns away !

"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."


As you can see, the Second Amendment thus had virtually nothing to do with the "we can rise up against an oppressive government" argument put forth by today's advocates of ownership of assault weapons, or the "right to self defense in your own home" argument put forth by the NRA.


Rather, founders from Hamilton to Jefferson, argued against having professional armies. Large professional armies were considered a threat to democarcy. Thus, the need for militias comprised of citizen soldiers, to defend the nation. The concept of universal service was even floated by Jefferson.

Elsewhere in the constitution, the mission and need for a well regulated milita is defined. Note again, nothing about the need for citizens to have a right to rebel against the government:

Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution:

To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions;
 
How many people now need a gun to feed their family or fight indians, bears, etc ?
Different times...

Don't get me wrong I like shooting guns just don't like shooting people.
Have lots of guns and ammo. Most bought before registration.
 
As you can see, the Second Amendment thus had virtually nothing to do with the "we can rise up against an oppressive government" argument put forth by today's advocates of ownership of assault weapons, or the "right to self defense in your own home" argument put forth by the NRA.

Does it need to? Freedom of speech doesn't give an outlive for why it was put in place.

Initially there was opposition to the bill of rights because they feared that the abscence of explicit protections could be used to deny them.

Now you say because TSA doesn't say it is for the purpose of revolt that it isn't relevant this is very dangerous. Right wingers have at times used these kind of arguments to erode TFA.
 
IHateGovernment said:
As you can see, the Second Amendment thus had virtually nothing to do with the "we can rise up against an oppressive government" argument put forth by today's advocates of ownership of assault weapons, or the "right to self defense in your own home" argument put forth by the NRA.

Does it need to? Freedom of speech doesn't give an outlive for why it was put in place.

Initially there was opposition to the bill of rights because they feared that the abscence of explicit protections could be used to deny them.

Now you say because TSA doesn't say it is for the purpose of revolt that it isn't relevant this is very dangerous. Right wingers have at times used these kind of arguments to erode TFA.
Click to expand...

The fact is, this whole myth that the second amendment was embraced, to provide citizens the abitlity to rebel against the government, is an NRA myth. Did some founders write some things, about rebeling against the United States Government? Probably, I don't deny it.

The FACT is, that the second amemdment, and the right to bear arms, was primarily intended for national defense, and militia's comprised of citizen soldiers. Since, the founders didn't want professional armies.
 
Cypress said:
The fact is, this whole myth that the second amendment was embraced, to provide citizens the abitlity to rebel against the government, is an NRA myth. Did some founders write some things, about rebeling against the United States Government? Probably, I don't deny it.

The FACT is, that the second amemdment, and the right to bear arms, was primarily intended for national defense, and militia's comprised of citizen soldiers. Since, the founders didn't want professional armies.
Click to expand...
The professional army provides an even stronger argument for a well armed citizenry.
 
Yep, how much federal military did we have then vs now ?
The founcders were not going to discouarage any help they could get.
After all there were still many British sympathizers around...
 
the second ammendment doesn't say anything about arming the citizenry to fight the government. It state the purpose for the citenzry to possess arms is to have a 'well regulated militia' quickly assembled.....a militia is generally understood to be organized by the government.
 
be that as it may, the second ammned DOES say '...the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed'.
 
IHateGovernment said:
Beyond that if you look at the wording of the amendment and its sentence structure the first part is but a supporting clause not a requirement for the right to bear arms.

For example if the first amendment read as. The speech being a vital instrument in the dissemination of truth to the people, the right to free speech shall not be infringed.

You could not say that any exercise of free speech not pertinent to the supporting clause could be infringed upon.
Click to expand...


But why did the founders make "a well regulated militia" the supporting clause, rather than "home protection", or "to rebel against the government", the supporting clause?

I'm saying that a well regulated citizen militia for national defense was the primary reason. And indeed, the second amemdnment goes out of its way to cite that reason as the supporting clause.

Your contention is that "home defense", or "rebeling against the governement" was the primary reason.. Why didn't they make those the supporting clause then? The founders were brilliant men, who chose their words carefully. Particularly, for a legal document, like the constitution.
 
The founders were pragmatic men. I don't think it would be wise to provide instruction to tear down the government they set up.

I'm not saying you are saying this but it is important to bring up that the first portion of TSA is only supportive because some content that you must be in a militia to be able to have the right to have a weapon and this is not true.
 
IHateGovernment said:
The founders were pragmatic men. I don't think it would be wise to provide instruction to tear down the government they set up.

I'm not saying you are saying this but it is important to bring up that the first portion of TSA is only supportive because some content that you must be in a militia to be able to have the right to have a weapon and this is not true.
Click to expand...
I agree that the founders were pragmatists, especially when taken collectively. That's exactly why Cypress' observation about the "well regulated militia" caveat is so important.

They clearly wanted citizens to be able to own and use firearms. It's equally clear, however, that absolutely unregulated access to any amount of firepower whatsoever isn't what they had in mind.

Personally, I can't see any reason to allow the marginally functional survivalist wannabe down the street to own a Barrett M107. Granted, if somebody really loses it he can do a lot of damage with just a 9mm. Why give him the capability for more specatcular carnage though?
 
OrnotBitwise said:
I agree that the founders were pragmatists, especially when taken collectively. That's exactly why Cypress' observation about the "well regulated militia" caveat is so important.

They clearly wanted citizens to be able to own and use firearms. It's equally clear, however, that absolutely unregulated access to any amount of firepower whatsoever isn't what they had in mind.

Personally, I can't see any reason to allow the marginally functional survivalist wannabe down the street to own a Barrett M107. Granted, if somebody really loses it he can do a lot of damage with just a 9mm. Why give him the capability for more specatcular carnage though?
Click to expand...
The survivalist that caused the most damage did it with fertilizer. This is again more scare tactic emotive reasoning.

"Those scary people might go crazy, let's forget that they have owned weapons for decades and decades and that the past shows that when they do go nutty they seem to use improvised exploding devices rather than those weapons, let's just say that they'll use the more inefficient gun! Better take those away!"

It's like the story about the LSD stamps, or about people putting stuff in Halloween candy.
 
Damocles said:
The survivalist that caused the most damage did it with fertilizer. This is again more scare tactic emotive reasoning.

"Those scary people might go crazy, let's forget that they have owned weapons for decades and decades and that the past shows that when they do go nutty they seem to use improvised exploding devices rather than those weapons, let's just say that they'll use the more inefficient gun! Better take those away!"

It's like the story about the LSD stamps, or about people putting stuff in Halloween candy.
Click to expand...
No, I don't think it is. An M107 is designed for one purpose and one purpose only: to kill people very efficiently. It is entirely a military weapon, like RPGs and Stinger missiles, and one to which I have no objection to regulating access.
 
The issue here is where is the line drawn, as long as you agree there is a line where the ownership of some weapons should be banned.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top