The Reason For The 2nd Amendment

[Shad4532]

Now it is very clear to me....the reason for the 2nd amendment.....see the link to the video...based on the true story ....

Battle of Athens (TN) - 1946

Be sure to see the actual photos at the end showing the plaques describing the event.

http://voxvocispublicus.homestead.co...of-Athens.html

[Warrior1256]

The Founding Fathers had a great distrust of a strong central government. They had just fought a bloody civil war to oust one. To protect ourselves against a tyranical government was the reason that the 2nd Amendment was placed in the Constitution. Military type weapons were EXACTLY the type of weapons that the Founding Fathers meant for the people to have.

[10P8TRIOT]

Lawrence Hunter's OP/ED on Forbes a couple days ago is the strongest defense of the Second Amendment I think I've ever heard. Unfortunately, very few understand the Founding Father's original intent of the Second Amendment.

The Second Amendment was designed to ensure that individuals retained the right and means to defend themselves against any illegitimate attempt to do them harm, be it an attempt by a private outlaw or government agents violating their trust under the color of law. The Second Amendment was meant to guarantee individuals the right to protect themselves against government as much as against private bad guys and gangs. That is why the gun grabbers’ assault on firearms is not only, not even primarily an attack merely on the means of self-defense but more fundamentally, the gun grabbers are engaged in a blatant attack on the very legitimacy of self-defense itself. It’s not really about the guns; it is about the government’s ability to demand submission of the people.

I strongly encourage everyone to read the full article on Forbes.com here.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/lawrence...med-citizenry/

[Ben Towe]

Great video!

[Glenn E. Meyer]

The problem is getting folks to buy into the defense against tyranny. They don't see it - which drives me nutty at times.

They cannot see the USA going towards a tyrannical direction.

They misread history and psychology.

Countries fall apart after crises and become tyrannical. The case of Germany after WWI is case in point (not playing the Godwin card) but just a collapse of civilization. Americans can act like monsters.

The oppression of blacks (and gun control laws aimed at them), Japanese camps in WWII, atrocities like My Lai, Abu Ghraib and the shooting of students at Kent State (all controversial, I know) show how standard citizens can become tools of the government. The Miligram and Zimbardo experiments show how simple manipulations make the average citizen become an instrument of oppression.

[nate45]

Originally Posted by GEM

The oppression of blacks (and gun control laws aimed at them)

Our gracious host, The owner of The Firing Line and S.W.A.T. Magazine, made that point on his recent appearance on MSNBC.

Many firearms laws were originally intended to keep them out of the hands of freed slaves.

Rich Lucibella on Up With Chris Hayes

[Tom Servo]

Many firearms laws were originally intended to keep them out of the hands of freed slaves.

Such injustice was also an impetus for the 14th Amendment.

[CUBAN REDNECK]

Abu Ghraib was an atrocity? Really? I don't remember the press finding any shallow graves or a room full of skulls anywhere near Abu Ghraib. You might be able to articulate possible human rights abuses, but atrocity is a poor choice of words to the describe the issues surrounding Abu Ghraib.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

Missed the point. Abu Ghraib demonstrated that the principles of the Zimbardo prison experiment apply in real life. American soldiers treated prisoners ways that are not acceptable given the dynamic of the social situation.

Thus, given the right social circumstances members of even our Republic can become instruments of unacceptable action and oppression.

That negates the counter argument that tyranny could not happen here.

Very simple. If you want to argue that it wasn't bad there - you didn't get the rationale.

[tipoc]

To protect ourselves against a tyranical government was the reason that the 2nd Amendment was placed in the Constitution.

I think this view is partially right but also misses something.

All of the Bill of Rights was aimed to limit the power of government, state, local or Federal, to infringe on the rights of the people. All of the original 10 amendments defend the rights of the people against the abuses of government.

The 2nd amendment did two things, it protected the right of the people to have and keep arms as individual citizens and it protected the state run militias (for those states that had them) from being unilaterally dissolved by the Federal government.

The Constitution had bound the "well regulated" militias to Federal and State control. They could not act outside of that control legitimately.

tipoc

[shortwave]

Stopping tyranny by our gov't.

Nice video.

[Carry_24/7]

We "glorify" our troops, they are nearly worshiped....they get a special prayer every Sunday in the Mass I attend. Then, we say we must prepare against them. Most people will not get that, it's a seriously mixed message that has not been clarified to most people. I know, it's those strong, central U.S. government leaders that are the problem. Well, those leaders will need troops, the troops we "support", Little Billy from down the street that's all grown up now and in the Army. "I have to worry about orders given to little Billy by a tyrannical, strong, central U.S. government?"

I get it, but this ain't just about me, it's about Jack and Jill suburbanite watching lines of child caskets on every news channel. The reason for 2A ain't gonna register with the the majority of these folks, as they're too busy collecting hand sanitizer and beef jerky to send to the those troops they're supposed to be arming against.

[nate45]

"I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God."

All enemies, foreign and domestic. That takes precedent over the orders of the President and officers in the enlisted mans oath above and is the central focus of the officers oath below. Preserving and defending the constitution is the primary duty of all our service men and women.

I, [name], do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.


Some people seem to think that a majority our troops will blindly follow unconstitutional orders and act against the people, I don't think they will. If they do, its the very definition of tyranny and a constitutional crises. As long as we continue to follow the constitutional process all should be well though.

For those who say times dictate change, Article V of the Constitution spells out the processes by which amendments can be proposed and ratified. Its all clear as day. Its simple really, follow the constitution and the rule of law and all will be well. Try and institute radical, unconstitutional change and all will not be well.

In my estimation it would take about 1/3 of the population and a significant portion of the military to launch a full scale revolution. Now who really sees that happening in the foreseeable future? I know I don't, but...history has taught us that tyrannical governments can spring up unexpectedly. None of us know what the world will look like five years from now, more less twenty. So we really can't say what might transpire.

PS: If someone is out there thinking our current government needs violent revolution wrought against it, you need your head examined.

[BlueTrain]

I wouldn't say the founding fathers fought a civil war. I'm not even sure it was a revolution in the sense that the French or Russian revolutions were. But that's a fine point.

I think the behavior of soldiers, any soldier from most any country, in the field does not necessarily reflect government policy. There may be some government policy, such as the Germans had, to do certain things but it would probably be separate and apart from the behavior of most of the soldiers. The reason is because soldiers are in the business of killing. It is probably difficult to be killing one moment and civil the next. Those who misbehaved in the prison scandal were also prison guards back home.

You are correct that the founding fathers did have a distrust of a strong central government. That's why they tried another system for a few years before they decided maybe it wasn't such a bad idea. Why don't we just abolish the federal government? It's the current trend, you know. We already have all those perfectly functional state governments. Sounds like a lot of duplication of government, doesn't it?

[Glenn E. Meyer]

We are not going down the road for UN Troops. Thus, I'm deleting posts on that.

BTW, if you want to talk about UN troops, go read some books or other sources on available force levels in the world and logistics.

So lights out on the UN.

[i50sx]

Post #6 video pretty much summarizes the views. The people on one side just ignore what's being said and continue blindly down the road to perdition

What was surprising was the pro's ignoring the rights we already have and asking for them to be regulated.

Also the NRA cuts were exactly that parts of a speech or monologue cut out to prove a point that otherwise wouldn't/couldn't be

And what's with the deleting of posts and accusation of drive by's and such. Did I miss something? Isn't the existence of this forum to blah blah about yadda yadda??

[Alabama Shooter]

Strange how we never hear much about Rosa Parks before or after the Montgomery Bus Strike is it not?

Wikipedia sums it up:

In 1957, Raymond and Rosa Parks left Montgomery for Hampton, Virginia; mostly because she was unable to find work. She also disagreed with King and other leaders of Montgomery's struggling civil rights movement about how to proceed.

Funny how they never talk about the nature of that disagreement or what happened later.

Why don't we take a (for many) surprising peek here into history:

She was especially proud of her grandfather’s willingness to defend himself and his family from the daily terror of the Ku Klux Klan in Pine Level, Alabama.

“Whatever happened,” she said, “I wanted to see it … I wanted to see him shoot that gun. I wasn’t going to be caught asleep.” This spirit of defense and defiance, she said later, “had been passed down almost in our genes' that a proud African-American can not accept "bad treatment from anybody.”

(there is a bit more there too that should be looked into)

http://inamerica.blogs.cnn.com/2012/...-from-the-bus/

What about Pine Ridge and Wounded Knee?

Thus, given the right social circumstances members of even our Republic can become instruments of unacceptable action and oppression.

Given the right set of circumstances I would say it is true in any society. To say that people are immune or better than this spits into the face of all of human history.

[Carry_24/7]

AlabamaShooter; nice post, something the masses can identify with much more than the "militia" defense.

This is what's needed, "meat" for the masses put into a story that can be understood by the modern, non-sporting family man or woman. We need other than "us" to defend the next time the likes of Pearce Morgan viciously attacks a gun advocate on his show.

The masses aren't going to buy into the need for an armed militia, it's nearly an irrelevant conversation for Americans outside of "us", and I'd venture to say that even many of us consider it irrelevant too (I know, I know, but it's in the Constitution.....).

[RH]

Every time the grabbers (yes, even your friends and aquaintances) talk about "you don't need x to hunt ducks" or "nobody wants to take away your target gun used for a "legitimate" sport", you need to very plainly explain - the 2nd has nothing at all to do with target sports (except as a form of training, or "regulation" in the language of the day) or hunting. Duck hunting is not a constitutionally protected activity, nor are hunting arms.

• The 2nd amendment is not about hunting.
• The 2nd amendment is not about target shooting.
• The "militia" was not, is not, and can never be a government entity, state or federal. That is called a "standing army".
• The National Guard is not the "militia" that the 2nd talks about. The NG is merely an extension of the standing army, technically controlled by state governors but able to be activated and federalized (happens all the time).
• The "militia" of the Constitution is defined as "all the people"., specifically those people not in the employ or uniform of the state or federal gov't.
• "Well regulated" does not mean regulated by the government, it means practiced, effective, equipped, skilled. So, a "well regulated militia" in today's english means a "well equipped and skilled (in the use of arms) population of free citizens". Skilled and equipped for what...duck hunting? No, for maintaining the security of a free state, or "securing" the continued existence of a free state, from enemies. Foreign and domestic.

[Rifleman1776]

I am an historical reenactor. My persona is the (how did you guess? ) the Revolutionary rifleman. I am also a former newspaper editor and have been active in politics my entire life.
My take on the 2nd Amendment is pretty simple.
The 1st Amendment was written to protect all our rights guaranteed under the Constitution, especially the Bill of Rights.
The 2nd Amendment was created to protect the 1st Amendment rights.

[Colt46]

'Castle Rock vs. Gonzales' and 'Warren vs. District Of Columbia'
Anybody that tells me that the police are there to protect you is dead wrong.

Try the Wiki page versions of those cases. It covers the basics without boring the reader.

[carguychris]

RH, I take issue with several assertions in your post.

The 2nd amendment is not about hunting.
The 2nd amendment is not about target shooting.

This is mostly true, but it's fairly clear from the writings of the founding fathers that these purposes were intended to be protected too, although they were ancillary to the primary purposes allowing citizens to bear arms for self-defense, defense of the home, and militia service.

The "militia" was not, is not, and can never be a government entity, state or federal. That is called a "standing army".

This is incorrect. The militia in colonial times was under the control and command of the state governments. Some states would sanction private militia companies, but this practice was not universal, and the private companies were expected to follow the states' orders just like the regular state militia was.

The Constitution clearly extends control of the state militias to Congress and command of the militias to the President. The prefatory or militia clause of the 2A was primarily intended to prevent Congress and the President from abusing their powers by ordering the militia to disarm.

IMHO a group of armed people who act like a military force but don't follow the government's orders are properly called a paramilitary rather than a militia. If those people were to initiate violent armed action against the government, the founders would probably have called them rebels or bandits; today, we would call them insurgents or terrorists.

The National Guard is not the "militia" that the 2nd talks about. The NG is merely an extension of the standing army, technically controlled by state governors but able to be activated and federalized (happens all the time).

Also technically incorrect. The state militias evolved into the NG because a militia in the colonial mold would not be adequate for fighting a modern mechanized war (although the Viet Cong certainly gave it a good try, but I digress), and because the original militia conscription system became increasingly unpopular in the 19th century, prompting many states to effectively dismantle it by exempting huge swaths of their populace from service.

The "militia" of the Constitution is defined as "all the people"., specifically those people not in the employ or uniform of the state or federal gov't.

The term "militia" is NOT defined in the Constitution. (FWIW the Constitution famously lacks a "Definitions" section, which has been the source of myriad contentious Congressional and Supreme Court debates for the past 200 years, but I digress again!)

The concept of an "unorganized militia" consisting of all military-age male citizens is a modern statute definition intended to address the unpopularity of the previous universal conscription system while simultaneously giving Congress the power to conduct a military draft under the guise of calling up the militia.

"Well regulated" does not mean regulated by the government, it means practiced, effective, equipped, skilled.

Actually, it means all of the above... but this doesn't really matter anyway, as the SCOTUS Heller majority decision clearly holds that the RKBA is an individual right independent of militia service.

[tipoc]

Article One Section 8 of the Constitution gives Congress the power to...

"Provide for calling forth the militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

"To provide for organizing, arming and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;..."

Article 2, section 2 gives command of the militia to the President when the states militias are called out in service of the United States. Otherwise command of the militias is reserved to the states or localities.

The Bill of Rights, which includes the 2nd amendment, was adopted following the adoption of the Constitution. The 2nd did not void the direct instructions of the Constitution.

There is more to the story of course than just that though. The states maintained control of the militias, those that had them anyway. They were seen as part of a bulwork against overriding authority from the central government. The right of individuals to own and have arms was viewed in a similar way, as a part of defense against corrupt officials as well as for general self defense, defense of the community, for hunting, sporting etc.

For Americans long before the Revolution, disarming the population meant helplessness in the face of corrupt government officials. There has always been a healthy distrust of government and their cops and agents in this country. It's a good thing to recall why now and then if you have had occasion to forget.

It's also important though that the 2nd amendment does not stand alone. There is a reason it is included in the original bill of rights. It does not stand alone, which is good because alone it is quite weak when it comes to defending political rights.

tipoc

[zukiphile]

Originally Posted by Warrior1256

To protect ourselves against a tyranical government was the reason that the 2nd Amendment was placed in the Constitution.

I disagree. I do not believe the right was included in the Bill of Rights as a utilitarian means to an end.

I have certainly heard people describe the right as if it only extended to hunting and skeet shooting. I have also heard people describe the right solely as a function of insurrectionist theory. Neither is a comprehensive explanation.

In the Bill of Rights, the Constitution does not purport to create rights or grant them, but to protect them. There is at work and idea of natural rights, i.e. rights possessed by free men as a consequence of their nature. Those rights include an ability to speak without prior restraint from the government, a right to choose one's own religious observance and doctrine, and a right to keep and bear arms. The idea is not that these are narrow, technical privileges. Therefore, to argue that one possesses the right described in the Second Amendment for the purpose of carrying out insurrectionist theory, or hunting geese, or shooting Indians, or shooting trap misses the point that it is described as a right, not a narrow, technical license granted toward a specific and socially agreed end.

Each of these rights certainly has utility, but their existence and legitimacy do not hinge on their utility.

When one argues insurrectionist theory as the sole basis for the right expressed in the amendment, it naturally raises the question of whether such a right is needed given the current form of government. If one argues insurrectionist theory as the sole basis, then to preserve the utility of the right he also needs to be prepared to describe how and why he would fulfill insurrectionist theory against a representative government. That second step will rarely represent the polemic high ground.

[Tom Servo]

When one argues insurrectionist theory as the sole basis for the right expressed in the amendment, it naturally raises the question of whether such a right is needed given the current form of government.

Whatever defects the Heller ruling may have contained, it was solid on one thing. The 2nd Amendment protects the right to self-defense.

The exercise of that right can apply to protection from criminals, foreign aggressors, or in the worst case, against agents of a tyrannical government. If one argues solely along insurrectionist lines, they're not only scaring folks, they're missing the central argument of the RKBA.