• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Some thoughts about the 2nd Amendment

Justice Joseph Story, Supreme Court Justice 1811-1835, made a commentary about the 2nd amendment, one of his remarks was:

The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium (defense) of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will...enable the people to resist and triumph over them..."

He went onto warn about the erosion of this amendment: "And yet...it cannot be disguised, that among the American people there is a growing indifference to any system of militia discipline...that indifference may lead to disgust, and disgust to contempt;

and thus gradually undermine all the protection intended by this clause of our national bill of rights."


The only current on the Supreme Court that has the courage to stand up for the 2nd amendment is Justice Thomas.

"Palladuim" is a rare metal; it does not infer "defense". Here is what Story was referring to in total.

Amendment II: Joseph Story, Commentaries on the Constitution 3:§§ 1890--91

§ 1890. The importance of this article will scarcely be doubted by any persons, who have duly reflected upon the subject. The militia is the natural defence of a free country against sudden foreign invasions, domestic insurrections, and domestic usurpations of power by rulers. It is against sound policy for a free people to keep up large military establishments and standing armies in time of peace, both from the enormous expenses, with which they are attended, and the facile means, which they afford to ambitious and unprincipled rulers, to subvert the government, or trample upon the rights of the people. The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them. And yet, though this truth would seem so clear, and the importance of a well regulated militia would seem so undeniable, it cannot be disguised, that among the American people there is a growing indifference to any system of militia discipline, and a strong disposition, from a sense of its burthens, to be rid of all regulations. How it is practicable to keep the people duly armed without some organization, it is difficult to see. There is certainly no small danger, that indifference may lead to disgust, and disgust to contempt; and thus gradually undermine all the protection intended by this clause of our national bill of rights.

It was about the militia. So cherry picking from the article is disingenuous.
 
One important thing we all need to consider regardless of your view on firearms is your view on the amendments as a whole. For example if we allow the government to take away our second amendment what is to stop them from taking away our freedom of religion or freedom of speech next. People need to think about the kind of precedent removing an amendment creates. Our society does not jump to banning muslims when an act of terror happens. So why guns? Also if we are allowed to make a gun registry because guns are dangerous when used by certain people. Than can't we also conclude that certain muslims are dangerous when radicalized? So should we be making a muslim registry as well? To me they both infringe on constitutional rights. When you start taking away rights when will it stop? Pretty hard to fight back against tyranny when you have no guns.

Another important thing that people need to think about is that there are many ways to murder masses of people. If guns are removed from the equation then bombs are probably the next logical choice. which can be even more detrimental than guns. so do we want to trade guns off for bombs? Also couldn't a vehicle rammed into a crowd of people cause more damage and destruction than a single gun?

My point is that we have our rights because the founding fathers didnt have these rights and thought it was important for everyone to have those rights. They witnessed firsthand the abuses that will occur when you cant fight back against an oppressor. We are supposed to learn from history and not let history repeat itself. Anyone who wants to commit mass murder will find a way to do it regardless of weather guns are legal or not. So lets do what we can to keep the freedoms that we were given at birth thanks to founding fathers.

How could the government take away the second amendment without the permission of the people? Under that scenario, it could have happened long ago.
 
So, if a group of citizens don't like President Trump, they can call him a tyrant, form a militia, and take up arms against him (ala Lee Oswald) and they are protected by the constitution?
How do you define a tyrant? George III certainly wasn't. He sympathized with the rebels.

Big Lebowski.jpg
 
You're confusing "tyrant" with "tyranny."

They are not the same.

People will tolerate a tyrant, but they will not tolerate an assault on their civil liberties.

It's difficult to imagine what confluence of events could lead to tyranny, but as the World grows smaller, the possibility of such events increases.



In a July 1, 1775 letter to Lord Sandwich, King George III made his position with respect to the colonies perfectly clear: "I am of the opinion that when once these rebels have felt a smart blow, they will submit; and no situation can ever change my fixed resolution, either to bring the colonies to due obedience to the legislature of the mother country or to cast them off!"

https://www.loc.gov/teachers/classr...esentations/timeline/amrev/shots/address.html


Yeah, that certainly sounds sympathetic.

Well, what is a 'tyrant' in charge of under a "tyranny"? A Republic?
 
Everytime I read this I wonder just how short-sighted some peoples' thinking is.

There are tons of books out there...fiction and some even non-fiction...that describe ways to undermine the US govt in an active violent revolution, mostly through asymmetrical warfare means. Firearms are not close to the primary weapons. I wont go into details, the books are out there.

Do we wage war, today, with firearms? Expect to win wars using them? No. We use bombs and tanks, and espionage and inflitration and sabotage and hacking communications, etc etc etc.

But...who DOES carry firearms and why? Our soldiers do...for self-defense. To protect themselves and others in carrying out the war efforts.

It's the same reason American citizens should have every right to keep and carry firearms. Not for the act of overcoming tyranny (as written, there are many, better ways to do that)....but to protect themselves and their families if they are considered 'enemy combatants' in such a conflict. Or as they carry out other acts of war/rebellion against the govt. *Just like our soldiers.*

Our firearms are not, in this era, a tool for waging war. Now they are to protect any soldiers in such a war...just like our military today. But that's why discussions about 'if they have tanks, should citizens have tanks?' are just dumb. Same with using nukes there instead of tanks.

Of course I'm not saying any such rebellion is on the horizon, I'm just writing that there are plenty of ways to engage in that conflict and firearms will not be the primary weapons.

The FFs believed that guns in the hands of citizens discourage govt tyranny, by giving the people the means to defend themselves.

A second Glorious Revolution is happening right now; talks about "books"!

No offense, but pick up a few.
 
@_@

Because the Constitution is intentionally designed NOT enable the govt and the American people to be a tyranny of the majority over the minority.

Seriously, come on.

What about the tyranny of a minority over a majority?
 
The 2nd amendment was not about fighting tyranny from your own government, this is preposterous. The South needed militias to keep the slaves from revolting. The North needed guns to kill Indians and keep the French and British at bay should they attack us. We had no standing army. States had militias that could be called up to form an army if needed and men had to be prepared to fight at any time. They were also asked to own a gun or blade to bring to that fight. Guns at the time were very inefficient and poorly made, very expensive.

The whole "tyranny" thing has been hijacked by the radical far right while they usurp the entire enchilada.
 
I do not take credit for the following statement, but I did find it thought provoking when I read it:



I believe the second amendment provides citizens the right to bear arms because a well regulated militia is necessary for the protection of a free state.

So your "belief' is that the bill of rights was only 9 rights of the individual against the power of the state and one right of the state to trump the rest of them?

One is entitled to one's beliefs, but there is no factual basis behind your belief. The framers chief concern was that any government left to its own devices swings to oppression and state slavery. This was the universal European experience.

The Federalist papers and other correspondence clearly reveals what the framers had in mind in protecting the rights of an armed citizenry; they, unlike today's leftists, understood the appeal that power has for those of twisted and demented intent.

The militia is not the national guard, the militia was and is simply any armed citizens having the capability of challenging power with force.

This does not mean they own weapons of war, but political intrigue is not challenged by ICBMs and tanks. It is challenged by an armed Jew putting a bullet between the likes of Hitler's eyes. No V-2s are or were needed to do this.



Random people carrying whatever they want for whatever purpose they may desire is not the intent of the 2nd amendment.

Why not, its "random people" who normally steal the liberty of other "random people."
 
Last edited:
Only the unorganized militia whines about gun control.

Militias are normally unorganized until the need arises for them to organize. That's the entire raison d'etre behind any militia.

It might unduly alarm the authorities to witness militias practicing war games.

 
Militias are normally unorganized until the need arises for them to organize. That's the entire raison d'etre behind any militia.

It might unduly alarm the authorities to witness militias practicing war games.


Only the right wing is that clueless and that Causeless. The Governor is the command in chief of the militia of the State.
 
So your "belief' is that the bill of rights was only 9 rights of the individual against the power of the state and one right of the state to trump the rest of them?

One is entitled to one's beliefs, but there is no factual basis behind your belief. The framers chief concern was that any government left to its own devices swings to oppression and state slavery. This was the universal European experience.

The Federalist papers and other correspondence clearly reveals what the framers had in mind in protecting the rights of an armed citizenry; they, unlike today's leftists, understood the appeal that power has for those of twisted and demented intent.

The militia is not the national guard, the militia was and is simply any armed citizens having the capability of challenging power with force.

This does not mean they own weapons of war, but political intrigue is not challenged by ICBMs and tanks. It is challenged by an armed Jew putting a bullet between the likes of Hitler's eyes. No V-2s are or were needed to do this.





Why not, its "random people" who normally steal the liberty of other "random people."

So the Federalist Papers were all about protecting an armed citizenry... Is that your claim?
 
Only the right wing is that clueless and that Causeless. The Governor is the command in chief of the militia of the State.

noun
a military force that is raised from the civil population to supplement a regular army in an emergency.
a military force that engages in rebel or terrorist activities, typically in opposition to a regular army.
all able-bodied civilians eligible by law for military service.

Much like the term "Liberal" (meaning favoring individual "liberty") the term "militia" has been twisted into meaning its exact opposite.

In the context of the time (fighting an oppressive army of Redcoats,) militia meant "terrorists" from the point of view of the ruling class.

We call the "national guard" the "national guard" and not the militia for this reason:

European rulers had standing armies to invade other countries but had their "national guards" to kill their own rebellious countrymen; it takes special training to kill your friends and neighbors.
 
What about the tyranny of a minority over a majority?

What tyranny? The majority has the weight of law and the legal system. The majority should just be amending the constitution if they have a problem with the law.
 
So the Federalist Papers were all about protecting an armed citizenry... Is that your claim?


Federalist number 46 (James Madison)

Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of. Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms. And it is not certain, that with this aid alone they would not be able to shake off their yokes. But were the people to possess the additional advantages of local governments chosen by themselves, who could collect the national will and direct the national force, and of officers appointed out of the militia, by these governments, and attached both to them and to the militia, it may be affirmed with the greatest assurance, that the throne of every tyranny in Europe would be speedily overturned in spite of the legions which surround it.

Now you have a clue as to the purpose of the second amendment and it has nothing to do with hunting game.

 
What tyranny? The majority has the weight of law and the legal system. The majority should just be amending the constitution if they have a problem with the law.

And here I thought "12 men good and true" were necessary to send another to the gallows or a dank dark prison or even to strip him of his stuff.

 
"Palladuim" is a rare metal; it does not infer "defense". Here is what Story was referring to in total.

Amendment II: Joseph Story, Commentaries on the Constitution 3:§§ 1890--91



It was about the militia. So cherry picking from the article is disingenuous.

The point is, "Who are the militia?" I can tell who isn't the militia, the militia isn't a "standing army" the militia isn't a federal funded national guard. This militia is every citizen of the country. This is what Justice Story was saying when he made the remark "The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them."
 
The whole "tyranny" thing has been hijacked by the radical far right while they usurp the entire enchilada.

The people who constructed the constitution, especially the anti-federalist, wanted the bill of right installed into our constitution because they were students of history. The debates about the 2nd amendment tells us a lot about their thinking on tyranny and the abuse of power by a central government. It is the obligation and duty of the people and the states to make sure this doesn't happen, hence, the 2nd amendment. One can look at history for examples of countries that have become disarmed for the sake of society and have put their trust in their government for security, "spoiler alert", it didn't fair well for the society.
 


Much like the term "Liberal" (meaning favoring individual "liberty") the term "militia" has been twisted into meaning its exact opposite.

In the context of the time (fighting an oppressive army of Redcoats,) militia meant "terrorists" from the point of view of the ruling class.

We call the "national guard" the "national guard" and not the militia for this reason:

European rulers had standing armies to invade other countries but had their "national guards" to kill their own rebellious countrymen; it takes special training to kill your friends and neighbors.

Like I have always claimed; only the right wing is that clueless and that Causeless. The people are the militia. Only the unorganized militia whines about gun control.
 
The point is, "Who are the militia?" I can tell who isn't the militia, the militia isn't a "standing army" the militia isn't a federal funded national guard. This militia is every citizen of the country. This is what Justice Story was saying when he made the remark "The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them."

Only the right wing, appeals to ignorance.

"I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
— George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788
 
And here I thought "12 men good and true" were necessary to send another to the gallows or a dank dark prison or even to strip him of his stuff.


Right now. But the left doesn’t want to take the route of amending the constitution. Because they can’t. They don’t have enough control. For the record...I’m pro gun ;)
 
Projection, is what the right wing is best at.

The People are the Militia. Only the unorganized Militia of the People, whine about gun control.

“The people” is the ENTIRE citizenry of the United States. Just like it was used in every other amendment in the bill of rights.

“The militia” is conscructed from the people. It is a subset. One has the right without being IN the militia. Period.
 
“The people” is the ENTIRE citizenry of the United States. Just like it was used in every other amendment in the bill of rights.

“The militia” is conscructed from the people. It is a subset. One has the right without being IN the militia. Period.

No, they don't. The People are the Militia; You are either, well regulated or you are unorganized. Only the Unorganized militia whines about gun control.
 
Back
Top Bottom