Some thoughts about the 2nd Amendment

I am not an advocate for or against the 2A. I do have thoughts on the subject tho. I think we need people to agree why we need or don't need the 2A so that when tragedies like a mass school shooting happens the argument of whether people should have guns or not is concluded. Right now we should be discussing how to improve the safety of our children at school and instead most of the conversation is about whether people should have access to firearms.

So, why do we have the 2nd amendment in the USA, and does our current legislation for firearms fulfill the intention the framers of the 2nd amendment had in mind?
If the answer to the second part of the question is no, we need to make our firearm laws more in tune with the framers of the amendment or accept that firearms are no longer protected by the constitution for the reasons that the framers had in mind, and therefore shouldn't even be constitutionally protected without a new amendment.

Pozessed said:

So, why do we have the 2nd amendment in the USA, and does our current legislation for firearms fulfill the intention the framers of the 2nd amendment had in mind?

Click to expand...

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

Current firearms legislation is adequate.

Mircea said:

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

Current firearms legislation is adequate.

Click to expand...

I do not take credit for the following statement, but I did find it thought provoking when I read it:

Repealing the Second Amendment is a pipe dream but enforcing a strict interpretation of it might be attainable. By that, I mean requiring all gun owners to belong to a well regulated militia that requires strict training and that bears financial and legal responsibility for the actions of its members.

Click to expand...

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.

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

Mircea said:

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

Current firearms legislation is adequate.

Click to expand...

If a government that has made it illegal for citizens to own military grade weaponry like nukes and tanks were to become tyrannical, I think citizens would be inadequately equipped to defend themselves against said government. How is that adequate legislation if the 2A is supposed to protect citizens from a tyrannical government?

Pozessed said:

If a government that has made it illegal for citizens to own military grade weaponry like nukes and tanks were to become tyrannical, I think citizens would be inadequately equipped to defend themselves against said government. How is that adequate legislation if the 2A is supposed to protect citizens from a tyrannical government?

Click to expand...

Tell that to the Vietnamese.

Pozessed said:

If a government that has made it illegal for citizens to own military grade weaponry like nukes and tanks were to become tyrannical, I think citizens would be inadequately equipped to defend themselves against said government. How is that adequate legislation if the 2A is supposed to protect citizens from a tyrannical government?

Click to expand...

We're just ****ed, if they nuke us. Although, that's rediculous notion.

The United States military has been fighting insurgencies for most of it's history. Do you think former service members don't know how to cripple, or even paralyze a modern industrial army? Especially the one they served in and know every one of it's soft points.

As I said in another thread, there isn't an American politician alive that has the resolve to kill millions of Americans.

JMR said:

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.

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

Click to expand...

The right of the people to keep and bear arms was intended to protect ourselves from any threat; even a well regulated militia that's gone rogue.

Nap said:

Tell that to the Vietnamese.

Click to expand...

I heard we "lost" in Iraq and Afghanistan, too.

The Framers believed in the personal ownership of firearms. All of them owned firearms. Everywhere the term "the people" is used in the Constitution it refers to individuals, not group membership. The Framers obviously meant personal guns, not tanks or nukes, but what a normal person might find available and affordable. To the Framers the "militia" was every able-bodied adult, and personal gun ownership made a militia possible. No where do they say a person should have to prove a need before owning a gun. The Second Amendment is not based on need; it is simply a right of citizenship, like free speech or due process or the right to worship (or not) as you please.

Before you call for a new Constitutional Convention, be careful what you wish for. The 2nd Amendment will be low on the list of rights that would then be in jeopardy.

JMR said:

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.

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

Click to expand...

That's an explanation, not a limitation. Militias are drawn from the general population in times of need. "Regulated" at the time meant "trained". People can't learn to use firarms, or form a militia in times of need, unless they own them.

Remember the context at the time -- an oppressive government didn't want people to own firearms, but they were necessary for both personal protection and a check on the government.

Pozessed said:

If a government that has made it illegal for citizens to own military grade weaponry like nukes and tanks were to become tyrannical, I think citizens would be inadequately equipped to defend themselves against said government. How is that adequate legislation if the 2A is supposed to protect citizens from a tyrannical government?

Click to expand...

No individual soldier has access to nukes and you can own fully functional tanks if you're willing to go through the expess and paperwlrk. The only reason why you can't own an M1a2 Abrams is because of the classified technology and armor that goes into it.

JMR said:

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.

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

Click to expand...

Both Federalists and Antifederalists believed that the main danger to the republic was tyrannical government and the ultimate check on tyrannical government was an armed
population. English history made two things clear to the American revolutionaries: force of arms was the only effective check on government, and standing armies threatened liberty.

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.

It's clear that the intent was for individuals to possess weapons, and that all capable individuals were may be called upon to perform duties in the militia.

Pozessed said:

If a government that has made it illegal for citizens to own military grade weaponry like nukes and tanks were to become tyrannical, I think citizens would be inadequately equipped to defend themselves against said government. How is that adequate legislation if the 2A is supposed to protect citizens from a tyrannical government?

Click to expand...

Did it ever occur to you, that it is you who are inadequate as a leader, organizer or planner?

No doubt, you're oblivious to the fact that all battlefield tactical nuclear weapons were withdrawn from inventory in 1991 and disassembled. Notwithstanding the two variable yield warheads (for the SLCM and ALCM), you seriously believe the federal government would use gravity bombs or launch SLBMs against US cities (the physics of an ICBM precludes it from being used on US targets)?

And what kind of moron would actually lead troops in an assault against tanks?

Tanks and other tracked vehicles are easy to deal with, if you know what you're doing.

Not to worry, I do.

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.

Also forgo to mention is freedom of religion or speech limited to being 18 or older? So why should they be limited on their freedom to arm themselves?

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.

queenmandy85 said:

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?

Click to expand...

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.

queenmandy85 said:

How do you define a tyrant? George III certainly wasn't. He sympathized with the rebels.

Click to expand...

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.

Mircea said:

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.

Click to expand...

I stand corrected. It was Lord North who gave me what is now that erroneous belief. So I guess, they cast them off.
People forget that even in 1776, the King had to defer to his ministers.

We have a pretty witty king,
Whose word no man relies on,
He never said a foolish thing,
And never did a wise one"[32]

To which Charles II is reputed to have replied "that the matter was easily accounted for: For that his discourse was his own, his actions were the ministry's"
Wikipedia and numerous other references to the great Johnny Wilmot, 2nd Earl of Rochester.

It was his heir who really diminished the power of the Monarchy. Too bad.

Pozessed said:

I am not an advocate for or against the 2A. I do have thoughts on the subject tho. I think we need people to agree why we need or don't need the 2A so that when tragedies like a mass school shooting happens the argument of whether people should have guns or not is concluded. Right now we should be discussing how to improve the safety of our children at school and instead most of the conversation is about whether people should have access to firearms.

So, why do we have the 2nd amendment in the USA, and does our current legislation for firearms fulfill the intention the framers of the 2nd amendment had in mind?
If the answer to the second part of the question is no, we need to make our firearm laws more in tune with the framers of the amendment or accept that firearms are no longer protected by the constitution for the reasons that the framers had in mind, and therefore shouldn't even be constitutionally protected without a new amendment.

Click to expand...

The Intent and Purpose of our Second Amendment is in the first clause.

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.

Mircea said:

They are not the same.

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

Click to expand...

My experience has been the opposite.

Pozessed said:

...argument of whether people should have guns or not...

Click to expand...

That's not even a moot point.

People have guns. Hundreds of millions of them.

Taking them would cause a bloodbath.

Where is the argument?

We have a Second Amendment.

Why do any of our free States, have any security problems?

Pozessed said:

I am not an advocate for or against the 2A. I do have thoughts on the subject tho. I think we need people to agree why we need or don't need the 2A so that when tragedies like a mass school shooting happens the argument of whether people should have guns or not is concluded. Right now we should be discussing how to improve the safety of our children at school and instead most of the conversation is about whether people should have access to firearms.

So, why do we have the 2nd amendment in the USA, and does our current legislation for firearms fulfill the intention the framers of the 2nd amendment had in mind?
If the answer to the second part of the question is no, we need to make our firearm laws more in tune with the framers of the amendment or accept that firearms are no longer protected by the constitution for the reasons that the framers had in mind, and therefore shouldn't even be constitutionally protected without a new amendment.

Click to expand...

To be 'in tune' we need the same firearms as what the govt would use against us. Otherwise, what's the purpose if we can be easily overcome with greater firepower?

OTOH, that doesnt extend to things other than firearms.

Pozessed said:

If a government that has made it illegal for citizens to own military grade weaponry like nukes and tanks were to become tyrannical, I think citizens would be inadequately equipped to defend themselves against said government. How is that adequate legislation if the 2A is supposed to protect citizens from a tyrannical government?

Click to expand...

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.