• 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

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.

I think what bothers me most is that most people consider our rights to bear arms worthy of infringing, yet there is no amendment to conform to the will of the majority. Most people agree not everyone should own tanks, nukes, or high explosives. Which is certainly an infringement on the right to bear arms. So why not amend the 2A to conform with the will of the majority and end the debate that all weaponry is supposed to be legal?
 
I think what bothers me most is that most people consider our rights to bear arms worthy of infringing, yet there is no amendment to conform to the will of the majority. Most people agree not everyone should own tanks, nukes, or high explosives. Which is certainly an infringement on the right to bear arms. So why not amend the 2A to conform with the will of the majority and end the debate that all weaponry is supposed to be legal?

@_@

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.
 
The purpose of the 2nd Amendment is to protect against tyranny; not to allow people to hunt for food.

Current firearms legislation is adequate.

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.
 
@_@

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.

I thought the constitution was designed to be amended to the will of the US constituents so long as it followed the protocol of congress. And, a majority outvoting a minority is called democracy not tyranny to my knowledge. At best one could call democracy mob-rule, but not if said democracy was following a non-violent and minimally coercive protocol like filtering democratic policy through a republic.
 
I thought the constitution was designed to be amended to the will of the US constituents so long as it followed the protocol of congress. And, a majority outvoting a minority is called democracy not tyranny to my knowledge. At best one could call democracy mob-rule, but not if said democracy was following a non-violent and minimally coercive protocol like filtering democratic policy through a republic.

still incorrect. That's why 'anything not enumerated in the Constitution' may be decided by the states, but why we have the Constitution...for protections that the states may not overturn.
 
The Second Amendment is an individual right to own guns and defend yourself and your country against aggression both foreign and domestic. If you disagree with that, there is a way to change it. Amend the Constitution. Send that new amendment to the states and get it ratified. That's how you change the Constitution.
 
The Second Amendment is an individual right to own guns and defend yourself and your country against aggression both foreign and domestic. If you disagree with that, there is a way to change it. Amend the Constitution. Send that new amendment to the states and get it ratified. That's how you change the Constitution.

Only in right wing fantasy. In Constitutional law, it is a States' sovereign right, secured by our Tenth Amendment.

The defense and protection of the state and of the United States is an obligation of all persons within the state. The legislature shall provide for the discharge of this obligation and for the maintenance and regulation of an organized militia.
 
Only in right wing fantasy. In Constitutional law, it is a States' sovereign right, secured by our Tenth Amendment.

The defense and protection of the state and of the United States is an obligation of all persons within the state. The legislature shall provide for the discharge of this obligation and for the maintenance and regulation of an organized militia.

The Framers disagree; they all owned personal firearms.

"The Constitution shall never be construed to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms."
- Samuel Adams, Massachusetts Ratifying Convention, 1788
 
The Framers disagree; they all owned personal firearms.

"The Constitution shall never be construed to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms."
- Samuel Adams, Massachusetts Ratifying Convention, 1788

lol. there is no appeal to ignorance of the law, right wingers.
 
. Most people agree not everyone should own tanks, nukes, or high explosives. Which is certainly an infringement on the right to bear arms.

The 2nd Amendment says "to bear Arms"

"To bear" means to carry as a burden.

See A DICTIONARY OF THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE IN WHICH The WORDS are deduced from their ORIGINALS, Explained in their Different Meanings, AND Authorised by the NAMES of the WRITERS in whose WORKS they are found.

Abstracted from the Folio Edition by the AUTHOR SAMUEL JOHNSON, AM. To WHICH are PREFIXED, a GRAMMAR of the ENGLISH LANGUAGE, and The PREFACE to the Folio Edition.

10th Edition

London, 1785.


Unless you have trained people who can crew a tank, it would be totally useless.

The suggestion of nukes is totally absurd.

Not only could you never obtain one for any number of reasons, including the cost, you couldn't possibly properly maintain a nuclear weapon so that it would function when needed.

The 2nd amendment was not about fighting tyranny from your own government, this is preposterous.

No doubt, you failed to read and understand the historical information I provided.
 
The 2nd Amendment says "to bear Arms"

"To bear" means to carry as a burden.

See A DICTIONARY OF THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE IN WHICH The WORDS are deduced from their ORIGINALS, Explained in their Different Meanings, AND Authorised by the NAMES of the WRITERS in whose WORKS they are found.

Abstracted from the Folio Edition by the AUTHOR SAMUEL JOHNSON, AM. To WHICH are PREFIXED, a GRAMMAR of the ENGLISH LANGUAGE, and The PREFACE to the Folio Edition.

10th Edition

London, 1785.


Unless you have trained people who can crew a tank, it would be totally useless.

The suggestion of nukes is totally absurd.

Not only could you never obtain one for any number of reasons, including the cost, you couldn't possibly properly maintain a nuclear weapon so that it would function when needed.



No doubt, you failed to read and understand the historical information I provided.

I have read plenty of history, I must have missed your links. Did you cherry pick something I missed?
 
The 2nd Amendment says "to bear Arms"

"To bear" means to carry as a burden.

See A DICTIONARY OF THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE IN WHICH The WORDS are deduced from their ORIGINALS, Explained in their Different Meanings, AND Authorised by the NAMES of the WRITERS in whose WORKS they are found.

Abstracted from the Folio Edition by the AUTHOR SAMUEL JOHNSON, AM. To WHICH are PREFIXED, a GRAMMAR of the ENGLISH LANGUAGE, and The PREFACE to the Folio Edition.

10th Edition

London, 1785.


Unless you have trained people who can crew a tank, it would be totally useless.

The suggestion of nukes is totally absurd.

Not only could you never obtain one for any number of reasons, including the cost, you couldn't possibly properly maintain a nuclear weapon so that it would function when needed.



No doubt, you failed to read and understand the historical information I provided.

Our Second Amendment is about the security needs of a free State, not natural rights.
 
I have read plenty of history, I must have missed your links. Did you cherry pick something I missed?

There was only 13 colonies, and all of their issues were presented.

The arguments for and against ratification of Constitution are evident in the state conventions. New York ratified the Constitution, but it included with the ratification statement a declaration of rights and a statement that ratification was made with the assumption that the rights enumerated in the declaration could not be abridged or violated and were consistent with the Constitution. New York made it clear that the people had a right to keep and bear arms and that the militia was to include all the people capable of bearing arms, not just a select few.

New Hampshire also required the addition of Amendments to ratify the Constitution. It's 12th Amendment stated: Congress shall never disarm any citizen unless such as are or have been in Actual Rebellion.

Pennsylvania's contribution stated: That the people have a right to bear arms for the defense of themselves and their own State or the United States, or for the purpose of killing game; and no law shall be passed disarming the people or any of them unless for crimes committed, or real danger of public injury from individuals.

Massachusetts: The right of the people to keep and bear arms was included as was the statement that a militia composed of the body of the people was the natural and safe defense of a free state.

The North Carolina convention proposed that a declaration of rights be added to the Constitution which explicitly identified the right of people to keep and bear arms as a natural right and one of the means necessary to the pursuit and obtainment of happiness and safety.

In summarizing the State ratification process, three States, New York, New Hampshire, and Virginia, ratified while expressing their understanding that the people had a right to bear arms and that Congress would never disarm law abiding citizens. Two states, North Carolina and Rhode Island, refused to ratify until individual rights, including the people's right to keep and bear arms, were recognized by amendments. In Pennsylvania and Massachusetts, an effort was made to amend or condition ratification on amendment to including the right to keep and bear arms.The arguments for and against ratification of Constitution are evident in the state conventions. New York ratified the Constitution, but it included with the ratification statement a declaration of rights and a statement that ratification was made with the assumption that the rights enumerated in the declaration could not be abridged or violated and were consistent with the Constitution. New York made it clear that the people had a right to keep and bear arms and that the militia was to include all the people capable of bearing arms, not just a select few.

New Hampshire also required the addition of Amendments to ratify the Constitution. It's 12th Amendment stated: Congress shall never disarm any citizen unless such as are or have been in Actual Rebellion.

Pennsylvania's contribution stated: That the people have a right to bear arms for the defense of themselves and their own State or the United States, or for the purpose of killing game; and no law shall be passed disarming the people or any of them unless for crimes committed, or real danger of public injury from individuals.

Massachusetts: The right of the people to keep and bear arms was included as was the statement that a militia composed of the body of the people was the natural and safe defense of a free state.

The North Carolina convention proposed that a declaration of rights be added to the Constitution which explicitly identified the right of people to keep and bear arms as a natural right and one of the means necessary to the pursuit and obtainment of happiness and safety.

In summarizing the State ratification process, three States, New York, New Hampshire, and Virginia, ratified while expressing their understanding that the people had a right to bear arms and that Congress would never disarm law abiding citizens. Two states, North Carolina and Rhode Island, refused to ratify until individual rights, including the people's right to keep and bear arms, were recognized by amendments. In Pennsylvania and Massachusetts, an effort was made to amend or condition ratification on amendment to including the right to keep and bear arms.
 
The 2nd amendment is a classic case of self-replication, like a parasite that produces what it's offspring need from the body of the host.
Listen. It's too late now, you couldn't go back if you wanted to. You can't put toothpaste back in the tube. But you need guns to protect yourself and your family in a toxic, hyper-violent society where anyone could be a victim, could be preyed on, at any time. Not because of any need to resist tyranny. That's just bullcrap that sounds high and solemn and important. The fact is the 2nd amendment has created the need for the 2nd amendment. The proliferation of guns means you need guns.
Ever wonder if something was screwed up, done terribly wrong, at some point that led to this fubar situation?
 
The 2nd amendment is a classic case of self-replication, like a parasite that produces what it's offspring need from the body of the host.
Listen. It's too late now, you couldn't go back if you wanted to. You can't put toothpaste back in the tube. But you need guns to protect yourself and your family in a toxic, hyper-violent society where anyone could be a victim, could be preyed on, at any time. Not because of any need to resist tyranny. That's just bullcrap that sounds high and solemn and important. The fact is the 2nd amendment has created the need for the 2nd amendment. The proliferation of guns means you need guns.
Ever wonder if something was screwed up, done terribly wrong, at some point that led to this fubar situation?


Ouch!

The truth hurts.
 
The Second Amendment is an individual right to own guns and defend yourself and your country against aggression both foreign and domestic. If you disagree with that, there is a way to change it. Amend the Constitution. Send that new amendment to the states and get it ratified. That's how you change the Constitution.

It didn't take an amendment to change the second amendment from a collective right into an individual right, so why it would it take one to change it back?
 
It didn't take an amendment to change the second amendment from a collective right into an individual right, so why it would it take one to change it back?

Yes it did, none of the bill of rights were individual rights until the 14th amendment
 
Yes it did, none of the bill of rights were individual rights until the 14th amendment

I think the 14th amendment amended the 13th amendment....and allowed for applying the restrictions on the federal government found in the BoR to the states. But I'm still of the opinion that Heller redefined the 2nd into an individual right.
 
I think the 14th amendment amended the 13th amendment....and allowed for applying the restrictions on the federal government found in the BoR to the states. But I'm still of the opinion that Heller redefined the 2nd into an individual right.

Which is what made them individual rights. If the federal govt cant ban guns but your state still has the ability to ban all guns, would you really say you have the right to own a gun?
 
Which is what made them individual rights. If the federal govt cant ban guns but your state still has the ability to ban all guns, would you really say you have the right to own a gun?

Well, if the 14th incorporated the same restrictions on the states that the BoR imposed on the federal government...then I would think that the states can't ban all guns, either.
 
Well, if the 14th incorporated the same restrictions on the states that the BoR imposed on the federal government...then I would think that the states can't ban all guns, either.

But they could before the 14th amendment, which was my point
 
But they could before the 14th amendment, which was my point

I'm still not seeing how the 14th amendment turned the BoR into individual rights. What verbage in the 14th makes you think it does?
 
I'm still not seeing how the 14th amendment turned the BoR into individual rights. What verbage in the 14th makes you think it does?

By not allowing any govt entity to abridge a person rights. Again I would ask (pre 14th) how you could call any right a personal right if you city, county or state could take it away?
 
By not allowing any govt entity to abridge a person rights. Again I would ask (pre 14th) how you could call any right a personal right if you city, county or state could take it away?

But the 14th doesn't prevent the government from regulating guns...or speech for that matter. Most of the states still have the same second amendment provisions in their state constitutions that they had before the 14th amendment. And the courts are still referencing State constitutions in second amendment cases. So what changed? I can see how the 14th protects civil rights but I'm still not seeing how it changed all the BoR into an individual right.

Abridging rights isn't the same as abridging privileges and immunities, is it?
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom