The 2nd Amendment

[Revoltingest]

It is very much selective reading. They select not to read the part about it being for militia purposes. And if they do deign to acknowledge that part they don't seem to know what a militia is or what it is for. It is not for guerrilla tactics or warfare, it is not for anarchy purposes or the like. It is for the purpose of adding extra troops to the actual military to fight alongside them. Extra soldiers taken from volunteer citizens who serve as reserve units to be called when needed. We have that already in the form of the Air Force, Navy, and Marine Reserves and the National Guard. These units have been equipped with something that the militia did not have back in the day the Constitution was written...armories. They do not need to have to worry about keeping and providing their own weapons. The 2nd Amendment itself had been rendered pretty much obsolete by the sheer existence of our military reserves.

Many of us, including the USSC, would disagree.
From Wikipedia....

In 2008 and 2010, the Supreme Court issued two landmark decisions officially establishing this interpretation. In District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), the Court ruled that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to possess a firearm, unconnected to service in a militia[1][2] and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. In dicta, the Court listed many longstanding prohibitions and restrictions on firearms possession as being consistent with the Second Amendment.[3] In McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U.S. 3025 (2010), the Court ruled that the Second Amendment limits state and local governments to the same extent that it limits the federal government.[4]

Moreover, to place all physical power in the hands of government (active & reserve military) is to give them more power over us than I'd like.

Btw, the fact that it seems obsolete is a good thing, eh? Armed revolution should be very very seldom.

 

[Mercy Not Sacrifice]

Really, I don't care all that much about "original intent." The "original intent" of our nation was to be a confederation ruled by rich, white, male property owners, and we all see how well that turned out. And the notion that the 2nd Amendment is supposed to be a "defense against tyranny," that it gives people the right to overthrow the government if they so choose, is even more ludicrous. If a group of armed citizens tried to take on a military that is the most advanced, the most powerful, the most expansive, the most spying, the most lethal military in human history, they wouldn't even get out of their cute little survival bunkers. They wouldn't stand a chance.

 

[Twilight Hue]

Really, I don't care all that much about "original intent." The "original intent" of our nation was to be a confederation ruled by rich, white, male property owners, and we all see how well that turned out. And the notion that the 2nd Amendment is supposed to be a "defense against tyranny," that it gives people the right to overthrow the government if they so choose, is even more ludicrous. If a group of armed citizens tried to take on a military that is the most advanced, the most powerful, the most expansive, the most spying, the most lethal military in human history, they wouldn't even get out of their cute little survival bunkers. They wouldn't stand a chance.

Any serious overthrow efforts I doubt would happen that way. It would be a slow incremental process and involving some very smart and connected people. Most likely through political and economic channels. It is fun though watching grown men run around with Airsoft rifles and pistols. At least it blows off some steam and a couple of cold ones talking smack afterward.

 

[Draka]

If you read the co-author of the second amendments writings, he said "The American People are the militia". Does anyone know who the co-author was?

Reading old text and applying today's meanings for the old words perverts the true meaning of the writing.

Anyone who studies law will tell you that it is the intent of the words at the time that they where written is what really matters.

Yeah, and the intent at the time was to make sure that should the need arise to supplement the armed forces again that the citizens called upon would have weapons to do so. We have that covered now. Are you trying to maintain that the weapons you have you have so that you are ready to supplement the military when called upon? Is that why people have guns? Because that is what the 2nd Amendment is about.

 

[Draka]

Many of us, including the USSC, would disagree.
From Wikipedia....
Moreover, to place all physical power in the hands of government (active & reserve military) is to give them more power over us than I'd like.

Btw, the fact that it seems obsolete is a good thing, eh? Armed revolution should be very very seldom.

They disagreed, and they were wrong, and I wonder how many of them were gun proponents themselves. The 2nd Amendment is quite clear. To interpret it any other way is to just read what you want out of it and ignore its true meaning.

 

[dawny0826]

The 2nd Amendment reads:

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.
​

Is it still relevant?

Absolutely. It's an American's constitutional right to bear arms and given the nature of so many within our society - those that do commit senseless acts - it's important to be able to exercise your freedoms to protect your family.

This video is curse word laden, so I caution anyone who takes offense to that sort of thing from watching (bad word alert!) but I think Steve Greene is spot on, here. He makes jokes, but I have to agree with him.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UeSz3fLme2I

 

[Reverend Rick]

Really, I don't care all that much about "original intent." The "original intent" of our nation was to be a confederation ruled by rich, white, male property owners, and we all see how well that turned out. And the notion that the 2nd Amendment is supposed to be a "defense against tyranny," that it gives people the right to overthrow the government if they so choose, is even more ludicrous. If a group of armed citizens tried to take on a military that is the most advanced, the most powerful, the most expansive, the most spying, the most lethal military in human history, they wouldn't even get out of their cute little survival bunkers. They wouldn't stand a chance.

So I take it you agree that the common citizen is grossly underarmed and no futher gun grabbing need be done then right? :slap:

 

[Reverend Rick]

They disagreed, and they were wrong, and I wonder how many of them were gun proponents themselves. The 2nd Amendment is quite clear. To interpret it any other way is to just read what you want out of it and ignore its true meaning.

Why ignore the authors other writings explaining what he meant?

 

[Draka]

Why ignore the authors other writings explaining what he meant?

And what? You take the words "American people" to mean that all Americans, no matter how big the country gets or how populated, should be armed? You don't think it possible that the statement was made in a more patriotic sense in that those who step forward and serve as a militia are the American people?

Again, we have a militia. The stated purpose of the Amendment is to arm the militia. We have that covered. Hence, no need for the Amendment. I thought that was simple.

 

[Twilight Hue]

The key words are a well regulated militia and right of the people. Is it govt alone, people alone, or is it both?

 

[Reverend Rick]

Yeah, and the intent at the time was to make sure that should the need arise to supplement the armed forces again that the citizens called upon would have weapons to do so.

What armed forces where helped back in the day?

We have that covered now.

So? That does not change my rights because we have something covered.

Are you trying to maintain that the weapons you have you have so that you are ready to supplement the military when called upon? Is that why people have guns? Because that is what the 2nd Amendment is about.

Bull Crap! You have no clue what the second amendment was about. These people wrote other letters about the second amendment saying it was the duty of every American to be armed AT ALL TIMES.

Other letters say the Militia is THE PEOPLE as in WE THE PEOPLE. What other forces where there back in the day Draka?

When you say the common man has no chance to stand up against a tyrannical government, you are presenting an argument for more guns not less.

Just because you can demonstrate there is no need for something does not give you the right to take it away. Besides, it is just your opinion that the militia cannot take back the government or they can protect us.

How well protected where the Katrina victims?

What if this advanced military had a computer glitch?

What if all the bases where attacked by nukes from some other country and there was mass chaos?

What if you dial 911 and get the busy signal?

Communities might just have to protect themselves and that would be WE THE PEOPLE and those folks would be the militia to coin a very old phrase you know little about.

 

[dawny0826]

And what? You take the words "American people" to mean that all Americans, no matter how big the country gets or how populated, should be armed? You don't think it possible that the statement was made in a more patriotic sense in that those who step forward and serve as a militia are the American people?

Again, we have a militia. The stated purpose of the Amendment is to arm the militia. We have that covered. Hence, no need for the Amendment. I thought that was simple.

Hi Draka. Actually, the stated purpose of the second Amendment is to ensure that the people, meaning American citizens had the ability to bear arms and protect themselves and this includes protection against unjust actions made by the government or to serve when needed to protect fellow Americans as a civilian milita.

If you support the removal of this Amendment, you're basically stating that the people should have no right to rebel against their own government if the government were to use extreme and radical measures against the people. As a nation for the people, by the people, we should always have the ability to rebel as we ultimately control the government, not vice versa. At least, this was the idea.

Additionally, in times of catastrophy, when government entities cannot support the people, the people may need to form their own civilian militia. This is the basic premise of our Constitution - a nation for the people, by the people. We should be able to protect ourselves and fend for ourselves, without government restriction.

Seriously, when there's a zombie outbreak (ha ha ), wouldn't you want weapons? Way easier to use than shovels.

It's contingent really upon how much power you want to give your government over your life and your rights. The 2nd Amendment applies to the right of the American citizen to protect him/herself from fellow citizens and from the government IF there was extreme need.

In terms of bearing arms for protection...I think that it's more relevent NOW to be able to bear arms than it has been in the past, not to insinuate that every citizen SHOULD bear arms, but certainly, that right shouldn't be revoked.

 

[Reverend Rick]

Do you think we have a big enough military to go to 500 cities at the same time?

You are thinking about one little problem at a time where you are right, we have things covered.

There could be a natural disaster or some other threat that would require the common citizens to unite together to address the problem.

The local Sheriff may be required to deputize certain citizens to do their civic duty.

What if the local armory was destroyed by an earthquake?

Yes, once again our military can handle any one problem at any time with ease.

Do you think they could protect every single citizen at the very same time?

They are good, but they as anything is limited and cannot be guaranteed to be there for us when needed.

 

[Reverend Rick]

Abolishing the Second Amendment is an attack on self reliance. There are many folks who despise self reliant people. If the stores where to close for a week, they would starve. If the power goes out, they would be in the dark. If the water supply where to be compromised, they would go thirsty.

If the government did not show up to help them, they would be helpless.

If YOU want to depend on the government, that is your choice, just don't make ME depend on them as well.

 

[Twilight Hue]

Thought this might be interesting....

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms. The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government."-Thomas Jefferson, Proposed Virginia Constitution, 1776, Jefferson Papers 344*

 

[Skwim]

Many of us, including the USSC, would disagree.
From Wikipedia....

In 2008 and 2010, the Supreme Court issued two landmark decisions officially establishing this interpretation. In District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), the Court ruled that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to possess a firearm, unconnected to service in a militia[1][2] and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. In dicta, the Court listed many longstanding prohibitions and restrictions on firearms possession as being consistent with the Second Amendment.[3] In McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U.S. 3025 (2010), the Court ruled that the Second Amendment limits state and local governments to the same extent that it limits the federal government.[4]
​

I've read it before. The District of Columbia v. Heller ruling was a 5-4 decision, which I feel was a mistake. I side with Stevens, Souter, Ginsburg, and Breyer, the dissenting minority.
In his dissenting opinion Stevens wrote that the court's judgment was

"a strained and unpersuasive reading" which overturned longstanding precedent, and that the court had "bestowed a dramatic upheaval in the law." Stevens also stated that the amendment was notable for the "omission of any statement of purpose related to the right to use firearms for hunting or personal self-defense" which was present in the Declarations of Rights of Pennsylvania and Vermont.

The Stevens dissent seems to rest on four main points of disagreement: that the Founders would have made the individual right aspect of the Second Amendment express if that was what was intended; that the "militia" preamble and exact phrase "to keep and bear arms" demands the conclusion that the Second Amendment touches on state militia service only; that many lower courts' later "collective-right" reading of the Miller decision constitutes stare decisis, which may only be overturned at great peril; and that the Court has not considered gun-control laws (e.g., the National Firearms Act) unconstitutional. The dissent concludes, "The Court would have us believe that over 200 years ago, the Framers made a choice to limit the tools available to elected officials wishing to regulate civilian uses of weapons.... I could not possibly conclude that the Framers made such a choice."
Source: Wikipedia
​

So, although the majority ruling blatantly ignored the Amendment's Raison d'être, I'll go along with it, as much as I despise it's new aborted guise.

 

[Mercy Not Sacrifice]

Any serious overthrow efforts I doubt would happen that way. It would be a slow incremental process and involving some very smart and connected people. Most likely through political and economic channels. It is fun though watching grown men run around with Airsoft rifles and pistols. At least it blows off some steam and a couple of cold ones talking smack afterward.

Most of the chatter I've heard from the Far Right suggests that they want to hit the government as hard and as fast as they can.

 

[LuisDantas]

I would rather not vote, since I'm not American, but no, I don't think the 2nd Ammendment makes any sense or has any relevancy now, or for the last few decades at the very least. It was meant as a safety measure for a newly founded country, at a time when a militia could effectively defend itself from its own government.

That isn't really possible, since the 1960s at the very least. The one relevant consequence of the survival of the Ammendment to this day is that Americans think of it as a political statement or a justification for their love of weapons.

Even then, it is way too vague and way too outdated a statement to be the best conceivable. It really ought to be put away and substituted with clearer staments about gun ownership and use, perhaps at the State level.

 

[Mercy Not Sacrifice]

So I take it you agree that the common citizen is grossly underarmed and no futher gun grabbing need be done then right? :slap:

If I were to say "yes" to this ridiculous question, then I would have to advocate for the legalization of tanks, bombers, and nukes. Would you be OK with that happening?

 

[Apex]

I would rather not vote, since I'm not American, but no, I don't think the 2nd Ammendment makes any sense or has any relevancy now, or for the last few decades at the very least. It was meant as a safety measure for a newly founded country, at a time when a militia could effectively defend itself from its own government.

That isn't really possible, since the 1960s at the very least. The one relevant consequence of the survival of the Ammendment to this day is that Americans think of it as a political statement or a justification for their love of weapons.

Even then, it is way too vague and way too outdated a statement to be the best conceivable. It really ought to be put away and substituted with clearer staments about gun ownership and use, perhaps at the State level.

Can people just get this notion that "there is nothing the American people can do against its own military" out of their heads? As someone who is in the US military, it is not true.