The Heart of the 2nd Amendment

US Constitution


source

The 2nd Amendment (2A) was written to protect our inherent right to abolish our government through armed revolution if necessary.

The argument against civilians having access to "weapons of war" goes against the heart of 2A. How can you abolish your government through armed revolution (if necessary) if you have no access to weapons of war?

Therefore, if we are going to ban so-called "assault" rifles, then the ban should apply to government agents as well. If civilians can't have them but government agents can, then the 2A has no meaning.

How does the government have the authority to outlaw armed revolution in the US? It doesn't. In fact, there should be a new Amendment stating that in the event of an armed revolution the US government is prohibited under any circumstance to use air power on US citizens, including indirect (artillery and missile) fire as well as naval gun fire and armor (tanks). The fact that we have a massive military but cannot legally possess weapons of war goes against the heart of the 2nd Amendment.

If the authors of the US Constitution would have known the US would build such a massive military, they would have included a way for civilians to deal with it. Is this why the US was not founded with a national army?

Furthermore, 2A includes the word "bear". That word means carry on your body. So, if I can bear it, then my right can not be infringed. That goes for machine guns too. I carried a machine gun for the US Army. Now that I am a civilian I am not allowed to. Why not and who says?

Thoughts?

 

When the 2nd Amendment was ratified, the military had the same weapons as did the civilians.

 

Agreed, which is why I think it's meaningless today. It's just an excuse for betamales to hang on to their toys.

 

Absolutely untrue. In fact just the opposite.

Article 1 Section 8 describes a "Well Regulated Militia" used in part to put DOWN insurrection...and that is exactly what it was used for.

 

Just the opposite.

It's meaning is more powerful today than ever.

 

Being in a militia isn't a requirement or prerequisite for "the right to keep and bear arms."

Being in a militia is an example of how one's individual "right to keep and bear arms" may be used.

 

Were there any other examples?

No? Just the one?

Oh...

 

How many examples were you expecting the founding fathers to put in the 2nd Amendment just for you?

 

Wrong, egregiously so. Sorry but in this country the problem won't be the Military which mostly grew up around people who hunted and fished and owned guns, they are far more likely to support those who defend the second than those who are attacking it. Such a rebellion would more likely only have to deal with a few big city police forces and not all of them.

The are a host of letters and pamphlets written by our founding fathers almost all of them make the same case we are making. Which is to say that there cannot be a militia with an armed populous. And that populous must have militarily useful hand weapons.

I just love how the left automatically assumes that a military that most of them despise will automatically side with them should a rebllion over the second amendment happen.

 

The fact that they only put ONE...says that just as it reads...that was what it was about

A Well Regulated Militia

 

This nothing but right wing, fallacy induced fantasy. The security of a free State, is the Intent and Purpose of our Second Amendment. It says so, in the first clause.

 

As noted above...they have it exactly backwards.

The Militia was described in the Constitution as a protection AGAINST insurrection and that was exactly how it was used

 

The militia was used to SUPPORT an insurrection against the standing British government.

 

And oh yea...IN the Constitution...in Article 1 Section 8 one of the duties described is putting DOWN insurrection

 

No it doesn't.

 

Okay, I'll take the Constitution literally: Everyone can have a musket.... and I guess a cannon. Since that was all that existed then, that was all that could have been intended.

And if you want open carry for cannons, okay. I'm all for it.

 

I'll take the constitution literally and take away all your phones, computers, microphones, amplifiers, telegraphs, and paperbacks. You should only have the simple printing press and a man on a horse with which to exercise your 1st amendment right to free speech, because that's all they had back then.

Can't you see that the founders couldn't possibly have anticipated an Australian talking to an American in real time over 10000km?

 

Remember, a militia is not a professional army. It is not the National Guard. It is not the police. It is the last resort for ordinary citizens to provide order and defense during a time of calamity. The 2nd Amendment validates the legitimacy of forming a militia if necessary. And, if we are to be able to do that, the 2nd clearly states that we must be able to keep and bear arms and that that right shall not be infringed upon.

I see no conflict or ambiguity in the 2nd. It doesn't say "militia members may bear arms". It says "the right of the people to keep and bear arms." Implicit with that guarantee is that our weapons would be appropriate to the task at hand.

In a time of great national calamity, we, the people, may enforce order, and we may offer up a defense. This is not true in other countries. If their armies or police are overwhelmed, they are defenseless. Not true in the U.S.

 

BTW, the constitution doesn't contain any grant of power to the union to prevent the people of the several states from acquiring, keeping, or bearing any type of weapon.

 

Left wing nonsense. A free state cannot exist without a free citizenry and a free citizenry must be able to defend itself from governmental tyranny or it is no longer a free state.

 

Its not an excuse, its a right.

 

The only way democrats will support the second amendment is to give guns to illegal immigrants

 

Within the context of a "Well Regulated Militia"

A bunch of guys sitting around a barber shop whining about the "gubmint" is in no way "Well Regulated"

 

Of course it doesn't.

It in no way takes away any rights...it does however only PROTECT the "right to bear arms" within the context of a "Well Regulated Militia".

It simply doesn't apply because we don't HAVE that militia.

 

Thanks, a good, interesting discussion point. I'll have to go away and think about this.