View Single Post
Old January 3, 2013, 04:25 PM   #128
Senior Member
Join Date: March 7, 2008
Location: Cincinnati, OH
Posts: 122
Naw, you're still getting it wrong: the purpose of the 2nd amendment is to put down rebellion, certainly not to enable rebellion.

On the contrary, the primary purpose of the 2nd amendment was to ensure that the American people would always have the power to violently overthrow any government that descended into tyranny. I would say this is specifically defined as rebellion. A justified rebellion, but still rebellion. Having that power prevents the American people from being required to use it, so we tend not to think that an armed overthrow of our government would begin as an illegal act. The intent of the 2nd amendment was to safeguard the functioning of our Republic, the best way the Founders knew how. We can talk about the many erosions of freedom that have taken place since the writing of the Constitution, corruption of the electoral process, how much you hate your elected representatives, etc until the end of time, but we still elect our Representatives as laid out in the Constitution. If your elected representative fails to serve the needs of the majority of voters, he is replaced by his constituents with a newly elected official. So long as this system remains in effect, we do not have tyranny. The moment the government decides that popular elections will be “suspended”, we do have tyranny. And the American people have the duty to restore our Republic by force.

What difference does it make what the original meaning of the 2nd amendment was, or what the militia was. I for one do not care to be bound by what they decided well over 200 years ago no more than I wish to be bound by things written 3,000 years ago, even though such things were thought to be very, very important. Sacrificied any animals lately?

Never has the militia been called out to overthrow a tyrannical government and I'm not sure one ever has been anywhere. After all, the only thing that will happen is that one government will be replaced by another, perhaps by two others, maybe even more. I cannot imagine that a government that comes to power by force of arms, by revolution, will be any better than the previous one. What the militia was used for was to put down rebellion, which it did fairly well, fight the Indians and repell invasion, the latter two which it did poorly.
What you “care to be bound by” does not matter, even in the slightest. The US Constitution binds you regardless of your cares. No idea why you bring up “what was written 3000 years ago”, it isn’t relevant in any way to the government of our country—the Constitution and its amendments are. If public opinion is so swayed that there is enough support to amend the Constitution to repeal the 2nd Amendment, this is in fact lawful, and we will all be made criminals when we refuse to disarm ourselves. Keep that in mind when you scoff at the idea of “original intent”. Original intent is always central to the argument in Constitutional law. Tying the right to bear arms to a militia is absurd, as has already been clearly pointed out in this thread, as well as by numerous scholars far smarter than me. Of course the government, who controls the modern “militia” (National Guard) would never “call them up” to overthrow…themselves. This doesn’t seem to be a serious argument. However, the government of the United States came to power through revolution, by force of arms. Ditto France, and many other countries. Our government may not be perfect, but I doubt anyone would argue that they would prefer to be a subject to a limited monarch than a citizen of a representative democracy. Just thought you might be interested in a few examples, since you couldn’t think of any, lol.
coachteet is offline  
Page generated in 0.04397 seconds with 7 queries