The original purpose of the 2nd amendment?

[Lithium381]

After hearing people go back and forth on the issues of gun rights in our country, I'm sad to hear that many do not understand the history that led up to our revolution and the idea that we NEED the 2nd amendment. I hear that, it's for "hunting" or "recreational shooting".

Those are NOT the original purpose, which is supported by documents penned by the authors during that time period. The original purpose is to allow the citizenry to overthrow the government should the need arise and to protect ourselves from tyranny;

The people who want to severely restrict guns don't admit that. There are those that my admit that but in the same breath say "but we don't need that anymore, the government is watching out for us". I'm sad to say the very fact that we're even having such a discussion means that we DO need the right to keep arms. We're not talking about nukes or tanks, please don't try that tired argument.

We're at a boiling point here and admittedly it is scary that those in power are trying to disarm the citizens under the guise of public safety. Those who think citizens SHOULD have guns are labled 'gun nuts' and put down as insane even here on this forum.

What is the original purpose of the 2nd amendment, as you understand it; and do we still need it today as it was originally intended? What are restrictions on it that would still allow it to protect us to the full intent?

 

[Craig234]

No, neither the things you correctly point out are not the reason, nor the thing you incorrectly say was the reason, were the reason.

The reason was, the government did not want to keep a 'standing army'. If the country were invaded - such as it was in the War of 1812 - the plan was for states to organize militias to fight the invaders and defend the nation. That's exactly what they did - to pretty disastrous results, the militias were horribly ineffective.

But that's the history - which is really right in the amendment, if you read the first part, which is written in ink that's invisible to 2nd amendment fanatics:

"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state..."

The security of the state. As in, from foreign invaders. Not hunting, not sports, and not "being necessary to overthrow a tyrannical domestic government".

And sorry to tell you, but the 'originalist' argument completely undermines the 2nd amemdment continuing to have justification.

Times have changed. We no longer not only do not have a standing army for the 'security of our free state', we have the biggest one in the world, almost as big as the rest of the world combined, and several times the combined size of all of even our remotely possible enemies.

It's now a complete anachronism to say that the right to raise a citizen militia with sidearms to protect our security is needed in the constitution.

The entire notion of citizens protecting themselves from a tyrannical government - which is basically absurd in today's world - is pretty much invented and falsely inserted into the constitution. The people who do this scream their lungs out how they are 'accurately following the constitution', but they are the ones falsifying it for their political agenda - and a harmful agenda it is.

Funny how these biases work.

You know, Jefferson has that 'blood of the tree of liberty' quote about the benefits to democracy of armed rebellions every twenty years or so.

Do you really think that's a good policy today? What's even funnier is how the same people who will answer 'yes' to that are the loudest to want to kill potential 'terrorists'.

Jon Stewart did a good bit last night, compiling clips mostly from Fox News, where the pundits first got all teary eyed about how important the constitution is and people don't understand it; then clips of how the same people demanded we NOT give those rights to the people they don't like, leaving pretty much no rights they support - except the second amendment, where they defend the right even of 'terrorists' to go and buy unlimited weapons (and explosives), without even background checks.

So, you say you're sad to hear many do not understand the history - let's start with having you understand it - and how times have changed.

Which IS something the founding fathers wanted - for us to AMEND the constitution to change it to keep up with the times, as our needs changed.

Citizen militias against foreign invaders didn't work well then as shown in the war of 1812, and they would be far, far less useful now.

 

[Lithium381]

No, neither the things you correctly point out are not the reason, nor the thing you incorrectly say was the reason, were the reason.

The reason was, the government did not want to keep a 'standing army'. If the country were invaded - such as it was in the War of 1812 - the plan was for states to organize militias to fight the invaders and defend the nation. That's exactly what they did - to pretty disastrous results, the militias were horribly ineffective.

But that's the history - which is really right in the amendment, if you read the first part, which is written in ink that's invisible to 2nd amendment fanatics:

"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state..."

The security of the state. As in, from foreign invaders. Not hunting, not sports, and not "being necessary to overthrow a tyrannical domestic government".

And sorry to tell you, but the 'originalist' argument completely undermines the 2nd amemdment continuing to have justification.

Times have changed. We no longer not only do not have a standing army for the 'security of our free state', we have the biggest one in the world, almost as big as the rest of the world combined, and several times the combined size of all of even our remotely possible enemies.

It's now a complete anachronism to say that the right to raise a citizen militia with sidearms to protect our security is needed in the constitution.

The entire notion of citizens protecting themselves from a tyrannical government - which is basically absurd in today's world - is pretty much invented and falsely inserted into the constitution. The people who do this scream their lungs out how they are 'accurately following the constitution', but they are the ones falsifying it for their political agenda - and a harmful agenda it is.

Funny how these biases work.

You know, Jefferson has that 'blood of the tree of liberty' quote about the benefits to democracy of armed rebellions every twenty years or so.

Do you really think that's a good policy today? What's even funnier is how the same people who will answer 'yes' to that are the loudest to want to kill potential 'terrorists'.

Jon Stewart did a good bit last night, compiling clips mostly from Fox News, where the pundits first got all teary eyed about how important the constitution is and people don't understand it; then clips of how the same people demanded we NOT give those rights to the people they don't like, leaving pretty much no rights they support - except the second amendment, where they defend the right even of 'terrorists' to go and buy unlimited weapons (and explosives), without even background checks.

So, you say you're sad to hear many do not understand the history - let's start with having you understand it - and how times have changed.

Which IS something the founding fathers wanted - for us to AMEND the constitution to change it to keep up with the times, as our needs changed.

Citizen militias against foreign invaders didn't work well then as shown in the war of 1812, and they would be far, far less useful now.

Then lets amend the constitution, not go through all of these unconstitutional laws. There is a proccess laid out. Lets do that. We can't even get some of these restrictions through one house of the senate no less the state conventions. . .

You singled out the first part . . . but when you were talking about it, you missed out how it said 'free state'...also isn't that a semi-colon in there, meaning two related but distinct ideas?

You're saying its absurd that the citizens would not need to rise against their own government. Maybe not here and now, but look around the world, both now and in history. The purpose of the bill of rights and the constitution in general is to LIMIT the GOVERNMENT, not the people.

Having a standing army is great to protect against foreign armies . . . but what about against the government? You're flattly saying that there is NO NEED for a citizenry to overthrow its own government?

 

[werepossum]

The original purpose of the Second Amendment was to allow citizens to exercise the natural right of self protection from enemies foreign and domestic, including our own government if needed. Having just rebelled against an oppressive government, this was not a trivial concern.

I'll point out that most states of the era did not maintain large standing armies. What they did maintain were large armories, which allowed them to conscript a disarmed and largely powerless populace of peasants as needed to fight the state's wars at the king's whim. Had the Founding Fathers wished to do this, they could easily have done so, empowering themselves at the expense of the peasants. Instead they consciously chose to empower the peasants.

We have a decision to make as a nation. Do we want to be a disarmed, powerless army of serfs, unable to protect ourselves, waiting for the government to sweep us up at its whim and send us off to fight? Or do we want to continue to be a nation of free men, trusted by our government to be armed, able to provide for our own protection if we so choose? Today we have a large number of citizens who long for the comforting boot of government on their necks, because with being property comes freedom from responsibility and the comfort of having one's needs met regardless of whether one is able or willing to provide for oneself. And with SCOTUS, we are literally one heartbeat away from Craig's vision of America, when you have the right to be armed only when government wants you to fight for it. That should scare the living daylights out of anyone with the will to stand on his own hind legs.

 

[Fern]

-snip-
The entire notion of citizens protecting themselves from a tyrannical government - which is basically absurd in today's world - is pretty much invented and falsely inserted into the constitution.

“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

“…To these (federal troops attempting to impose tyranny) would be opposed a militia amounting to near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands.”

James Madison - (Federalist Papers #46)

Now who is inventing what?

Fern

 

[Craig234]

Then lets amend the constitution, not go through all of these unconstitutional laws. There is a proccess laid out. Lets do that. We can't even get some of these restrictions through one house of the senate no less the state conventions. . .

You singled out the first part . . . but when you were talking about it, you missed out how it said 'free state'...also isn't that a semi-colon in there, meaning two related but distinct ideas?

You're saying its absurd that the citizens would not need to rise against their own government. Maybe not here and now, but look around the world, both now and in history. The purpose of the bill of rights and the constitution in general is to LIMIT the GOVERNMENT, not the people.

Having a standing army is great to protect against foreign armies . . . but what about against the government? You're flattly saying that there is NO NEED for a citizenry to overthrow its own government?

I think you have a far better argumennt here, that a constitutional amendment is the right solution, IF the original amendment needs to be changed.

If we can't do that, then it's our fault it's not updated.

But it begs the question what the original amendment says. For 200 years the Supreme Court refused to answer that question on the second amendment. While it has recently taken a stronger position, it's easy to argue that's not well founded in the constitution, and it was hardly a 9-0 ruling, it can easily be viewed as political 'legislating from the bench'.

I didn't say the 'need' for citizens to rise up against their government is absurd as a possibility - I said the idea that citizens with firearms CAN practically do so as any useful rebellion is absurd. I don't really want to even waste the time getting into that absurdity, but suffice to say that long before some Hitler is elected where a united population rises up and saves the country, what would ACTUALLY happen is that some disgruntled people who don't like the election results like the tea party would become terrorists, a cult of a militia with all their justifications for using force and they'd kill however many people pointlessly while having absolutely no power to actually 'overthrow government'.

The power of the governement in its messaging, its media, and its military can wipe out any tiny such 'citizen threat' that starts to crop up - and it even if it got past that point would be a civil war, even in the original revolutionary war it's estimated a third of the people supported each side with the last third neutral. Today they have satellites, infrared, instant communications, and any other number of tools giving them enormous power. There's a reason relatively few US military can dominate large numbers in militias globally.

In countries with less developed militaries, both the need and the abilility of people has sometimes been seen to effectively oppose tyranny. But while Tunisia's government fell, and Mubarak didn't really have control of his military to oppose that uprising, if he had it would have been slaughtered; in Libya, the uprising would have been slaughtered if not for the intervention of European support; in Syria, 70,000 have been killed while nearly the entire world strongly opposes the government; but the US military dwarves those.

We already have an amount of tyranny in many ways - if you count things like the redistribution of wealth to the top, the reduction in worker rights, the corruption of our political system to allow wealth to buy it to serve them rather than the American people - and you see many Americans fighting FOR those things, not against them.

Let's note, our exchange was based on 'the history of why the second amendment was passed', not the larger issues of 'what's needed' and all the others.

Having said that, there are a couple issues - one is the interpretation of the second amendment which has recently been interpreted much more one way.

The second is what options there remain for gun control laws even under that ruling.

The third is the option for a constitutional amendment.

Right now, we can't even get a law passed for strengthening the bans against straw purchasers for drug cartels or for background checks for terrorists.

 

[Doppel]

The original purpose of the Second Amendment was to allow citizens to exercise the natural right of self protection from enemies foreign and domestic, including our own government if needed. Having just rebelled against an oppressive government, this was not a trivial concern.

Yep. There is no need to look for endless complexities, it is this simple.

In terms of practical application of it it's been debated ad nauseum, and only recently has SCOTUS made some compelling rulings one way or the other. As far as the rule of the land is concerned people have access to guns for self-defense and that is not going away; SCOTUS has ruled on it and it is a done deal.

 

[Doppel]

it was hardly a 9-0 ruling, it can easily be viewed as political 'legislating from the bench'.

Not uncommon. People are very opinionated in general about guns, even those who know absolutely, demonstrably nothing whatsoever about them. It's not surprising that the justices would have different opinions on this.

I actually find that the original wording of the 2nd is quite poor in support of the average joe having a gun, and yet there are reams and mountains of information and historical precedent supporting why the 2nd would have been written to support them having arms. I think the Heller ruling is absolutely the right one in spite of the dubious language of the 2nd (as I read it). There is really little doubt the founding fathers supported citizens having guns for their own defense and not only in support of defending the state. This also is completely in tune with the sentiment at the time of being able to defend one's freedoms.

 

[Craig234]

Yep. There is no need to look for endless complexities, it is this simple.

No, it's simpler than that actually - that simply adds in something that is some people's political agenda, that may have had some side comments, but was not 'the reason'.

It's like arguing that the original reason for the first amendment was for people to freely get to engage in political and sexual speech.

Now, it may have come to be interpreted to proect that, and there are people who want it to protect that, and maybe you can find people who mentioned that as a benefit even at the time (Benjamin Franklin was quite the slut, it seems, hanging out in places like a private castle orgy dungeon in Europe), but it wasn't 'the reason it was passed'.

We've had a hard enough time keeping political speech protected, which was under assault almost immediately under John Adams.

The amendment makes no mention of 'and domestic' or 'rebellion' or anything similar.

 

[EagleKeeper]

Yep. There is no need to look for endless complexities, it is this simple.

No, it's simpler than that actually - that simply adds in something that is some people's political agenda, that may have had some side comments, but was not 'the reason'.

It's like arguing that the original reason for the first amendment was for people to freely get to engage in political and sexual speech.

Now, it may have come to be interpreted to proect that, and there are people who want it to protect that, and maybe you can find people who mentioned that as a benefit even at the time (Benjamin Franklin was quite the slut, it seems, hanging out in places like a private castle orgy dungeon in Europe), but it wasn't 'the reason it was passed'.

We've had a hard enough time keeping political speech protected, which was under assault almost immediately under John Adams.

The amendment makes no mention of 'and domestic' or 'rebellion' or anything similar.

From your side and POV, it is simple and you feel that everyone else that disagrees is wrong.

As one that must be wrong. I say you are full if it.

In other countries where there was democracy, the government has taken over and changed the rules of the game to the point that tbe people became subservient to the government instead of the other way around.

Weapons by the civilians are outlawed, only the government can have weapons, which at times are used against the population when the government pleases.

Our own government here slowly chipping away at our rights, ignoring existing laws because they are inconvenient.

Who is stopping them; not you. You desire more control by the government because they know best.

The above has happened multiple times in your lifetime; given that our government considers the laws and constitution to be inconvenient and irrelevant; what is stopping them from moving forward on such lines.

They ignore some judicial rulings if does not go with their POV.
Refuse to enforce existing laws because of political sides.

It is no longer a government of tbe people, fir the people.

It is a government to control the people to ensure self perpetuation. Liberty and rule of the people are an open wound that must be sterilized

 

[Craig234]

From your side and POV, it is simple and you feel that everyone else that disagrees is wrong.

No, I don't 'feel' that everyone else that disagrees is wrong. You might 'feel' an opinion.

As one that must be wrong. I say you are full if it.

In other countries where there was democracy, the government has taken over and changed the rules of the game to the point that tbe people became subservient to the government instead of the other way around.

Weapons by the civilians are outlawed, only the government can have weapons, which at times are used against the population when the government pleases.

Our own government here slowly chipping away at our rights, ignoring existing laws because they are inconvenient.

Who is stopping them; not you. You desire more control by the government because they know best.

The above has happened multiple times in your lifetime; given that our government considers the laws and constitution to be inconvenient and irrelevant; what is stopping them from moving forward on such lines.

They ignore some judicial rulings if does not go with their POV.
Refuse to enforce existing laws because of political sides.

It is no longer a government of tbe people, fir the people.

It is a government to control the people to ensure self perpetuation. Liberty and rule of the people are an open wound that must be sterilized

The topic is, why was the second amendment passed.

You did not say one word to answer that question to 'prove' your claim.

Everything you said is about your opinion about the issues why you think it's a good right, what happens in other countries, why we can use the right, on and on arguing the 'issue'.

You're 'feeling' your opinion that history must have happened like you wish it did, because you wish it did.

History didn't happen the way it did for your convenience.

I could discuss the issue of what the best policy is, but let's not ignore that's different.

Look, maybe this will help.

The equal protection clause was not put in the constitution to protect gays from discrimination.

Now you can say that. And I could make a long post how you're wrong, because there are so many good reasons not to discriminate against gays.

But however right I might be about what the policy should be, it doesn't change the history - the amendment was not added to protect gays.

Even though it has now been USED to protect gays.

 

[Screech]

The topic is, why was the second amendment passed.

to quote fern's post:

“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

“…To these (federal troops attempting to impose tyranny) would be opposed a militia amounting to near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands.”

James Madison - (Federalist Papers #46)

It would seem that the OP's title has been answered, no?

Also:

I didn't say the 'need' for citizens to rise up against their government is absurd as a possibility - I said the idea that citizens with firearms CAN practically do so as any useful rebellion is absurd.

This would seem to ignore the events of the last ~5 years in the middle east.

I don't really want to even waste the time getting into that absurdity, but suffice to say that long before some Hitler is elected where a united population rises up and saves the country, what would ACTUALLY happen is that some disgruntled people who don't like the election results like the tea party would become terrorists, a cult of a militia with all their justifications for using force and they'd kill however many people pointlessly while having absolutely no power to actually 'overthrow government'.

Certainly that is also possible. That does not mean, however, that the former is impossible.

 

[Craig234]

to quote fern's post:



It would seem that the OP's title has been answered, no?

Not by that - side comments by someone are not the history of the bill of rights.

Also:


This would seem to ignore the events of the last ~5 years in the middle east.

I should have been clearer in that section, my comment what is absurd was US-specific.

I later specifically discussed a difference between what happened in SOME Middle East situations, and the US.

 

[EagleKeeper]

What happened elsewhere was also considered to be absurd.

Moving the goal posts. :thumbsdown:
Because your original premise has flaws.

The fact is that such has happened and there is absolutely nothing that prevents governments actions like that from happening here.


The second was created to protect people (or allow people protection) from a government that would abuse its power.

Our government IS attempting to force the issue by removing rights and ignoring laws that it should obey.

The second is needed in theory to ensure the government remains of the people, for the people.


Your opinions are not worth anything more than another's and may be less because you refuse to accept opinions that challenge your POV.

 

[Craig234]

What happened elsewhere was also considered to be absurd.

Moving the goal posts. :thumbsdown:

Not by me. I didn't move any goalposts. You're moving them if you try to bring what others said about something to discuss my comments.

Because your original premise has flaws.

The fact is that such has happened and there is absolutely nothing that prevents governments actions like that from happening here.

As I already said, that's about 'need'. Not what is practical.

What happens when a people 'need' the ability to overthrow a tyrant, but it's not practical? Go ask North Koreans. And their power is trivial compared to the US governemnt.

The second was created to protect people (or allow people protection) from a government that would abuse its power.

No, it wasn't.

We could delve into the records of the debates - there's a book on this - but I'm going to say the burden of proof is on you, given the amendment says what I claim.

"The need for the people to be able to overthrow a tyrannical government, and to protect the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed". Now, that's not what it says, and even if it DID, the ability of these sidearms to overthrow the US government has changed quite a bit since then.

Our government IS attempting to force the issue by removing rights and ignoring laws that it should obey.

No idea what you are talking about. It would help for you to be specific.

The second is needed in theory to ensure the government remains of the people, for the people.

First, that's a 'need' argument. not what's practical.

Second, the threat to our democracy is not (in the foreseeable future) of the 'get your guns and shoot, well, something' variety.

It's of the 'corporations are people, my friend' variety, and I don't see YOU doing much of anything to oppose what the actual gutting of our democracy is caused by.

Your opinions are not worth anything more than another's and may be less because you refuse to accept opinions that challenge your POV.

Actually, not all opinions are worth the same, but it's a matter of opinion which are worth more; your statement is false and insulting I 'refuse to accept opinions I disagree with'.

I listen, if the person is worth listening to (hasn't had a bad record losing that right), and consider their opinion. If I think it's correct I agree with it and change my position.

I'm sorry if I'm not wrong more often to please you. Well, not really, that's just a bit of sarcasm to point out how nonsensical your comment was.

You want me to change my position - give me a good reason, not a false insult.

What, exactly, did not get treated fairly in this thread? Imaginary claims the second says things it doesn's say? Made up history to support an agenda? Side comments made about an issue not being treated as the primary reasons for the passage of an amendment? Absurd claims the US citizens can defeat the military under tyranny? What exactly?

 

[Lithium381]

From the OP

What is the original purpose of the 2nd amendment, as you understand it; and do we still need it today as it was originally intended? What are restrictions on it that would still allow it to protect us to the full intent?

As Fern demonstrated, the original intent of the framers was to protect the citizens from the larger government...how it was written is not very strong in its meaning, as it seems to be open to SOME form of interpretations.

Do we still need it today?

Are there any restrictions on gun ownership that the framers would accept, even them "not being able to imagine the firepower we have at our disposals". .

There are many examples around the world of where the citizens around the world have risen up, and many examples of how tyrannical governments attempted to disarm the populace. . . but we can discuss OTHER countries in another thread. Lets stick on US

 

[Lithium381]

Not by me. I didn't move any goalposts. You're moving them if you try to bring what others said about something to discuss my comments.



As I already said, that's about 'need'. Not what is practical.

What happens when a people 'need' the ability to overthrow a tyrant, but it's not practical? Go ask North Koreans. And their power is trivial compared to the US governemnt.




No, it wasn't.

We could delve into the records of the debates - there's a book on this - but I'm going to say the burden of proof is on you, given the amendment says what I claim.

"The need for the people to be able to overthrow a tyrannical government, and to protect the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed". Now, that's not what it says, and even if it DID, the ability of these sidearms to overthrow the US government has changed quite a bit since then.

I'm interested to know what book that is. At least in school and from what i remember, though it's been a while, is that the framers wanted to protect the people from the government. Doesn't it make sense in that context that the 2nd amendment *IS* to attempt to allow that? Without a scorched earth policy, the citizenry COULD be effective against the army(assuming they were ALL together in the effort).

No idea what you are talking about. It would help for you to be specific.



First, that's a 'need' argument. not what's practical.

Second, the threat to our democracy is not (in the foreseeable future) of the 'get your guns and shoot, well, something' variety.

It's of the 'corporations are people, my friend' variety, and I don't see YOU doing much of anything to oppose what the actual gutting of our democracy is caused by.




Actually, not all opinions are worth the same, but it's a matter of opinion which are worth more; your statement is false and insulting I 'refuse to accept opinions I disagree with'.

I listen, if the person is worth listening to (hasn't had a bad record losing that right), and consider their opinion. If I think it's correct I agree with it and change my position.

I'm sorry if I'm not wrong more often to please you. Well, not really, that's just a bit of sarcasm to point out how nonsensical your comment was.

You want me to change my position - give me a good reason, not a false insult.

What, exactly, did not get treated fairly in this thread? Imaginary claims the second says things it doesn's say? Made up history to support an agenda? Side comments made about an issue not being treated as the primary reasons for the passage of an amendment? Absurd claims the US citizens can defeat the military under tyranny? What exactly?

 

[Craig234]

A good example of how this sort of discussion goes:

Gun radicals often make claims involving Hitler and gun control. Their argument is, if you have gun control, the people can't oppose tyranny and you get Hitler unstopped.

For evidence, they point to strong gun control measures in place under Hitler. And that's the end of the argument - see, point proven.

Now, if you actually look at the issue you find pretty much the opposite.

The strong gun control measures were put in place not by Hitler, but by the allies after WWI. Hitler inherited the gun control from that.

Then in 1938, just as Hitler was really getting WWII going, he did what the gun radicals support - he DEREGULATED guns. They were far easier to get.

So, the opposite happened - just as guns became available, the people didn't use them to 'overthrow a tyrant' - rather, they followed him into WWII.

Now, when the facts under discussion are that there were strong gun control laws under Hitler, that's REALLY IMPORTANT ABOUT THE ISSUE.

But when corrected to show the opposite, well, the opic of Hitler and gun control is suddenly not important at all.

That's how it goes when people have an agenda and want to fit history to support it, whether it's how gun control caused Hitler or the history of the second amendment.

To clarify the comments I've made so far: they are based on limited information. I'm open to them being proven wrong with appropriate evidence.

Some of the things they're based on include my opinion of the finished product and my understanding of the thinking of the founding fathers' priorites on the issues.

I mentioned a book on just this topic; I haven't read it. If someone has and it has solid information that things are different, I'll say thanks for presenting that.

I was aware of Jeffersons' comments, as I indicated; I don't think they contradict my position.

Further, I think the founding fathers took out their concerns about tyranny in the writing of limits of the power of the federal government - not so much in wanting to liberally have those 20 year violent rebellions Jefferson was fond of. The people - in the form of the unpaid soldiers - nearly did overthrow the young Congress, marching on them, until Washington talked them down; Congress didn't exactly support the rebellion.

These were largely the same people who early on, under Adams, passed a law that imprisoned hundreds of people for saying not nice things about Adams.

That wasn't exactly the highest respect for 'the people' to rise up against the government.

In fact, when these early conflicts came up, the government answered them by saying that the right to vote had replaced the right to revolt, pretty much. Because the people could choose their government, andhad the protections of the constitution for their rights, they had pretty much lost the right to use force against the government, unless there was some extreme situation where the constitution was violated.

Rather, I think that there is an extremist ideology that has spread among some today, who want the founding fathers to have agreed to legitimize them.

That's why misquoting the founding fathers is very popular - THEY agree is a lot easier argument than a real argument, even if it doesn't happen to be correct or relevant.

 

[Craig234]

From the OP


As Fern demonstrated, the original intent of the framers was to protect the citizens from the larger government...how it was written is not very strong in its meaning, as it seems to be open to SOME form of interpretations.

We disagree. Did the founding fathers want armed revolution every 20 years, proven by Jefferson speaking positively about that too?

Side comments are not the primary reasons something passes, and the amendment as passed specificially did not include that reason and it could have. It's the only right in the constitution which gives a reason why it's protected - they could have included another reason if they wanted.

Do we still need it today?

I'm going to say 'no', as it's written, the reasons for it are obsolete.

What we need is a fresh debate about what our needs are now, which can include opinions about overthrowing tyranny and modern military power and whatever else.

Unfortunately, we're not very good as a country at having that sort of discussion currently.

Are there any restrictions on gun ownership that the framers would accept, even them "not being able to imagine the firepower we have at our disposals". .

People would like to discuss this as 'yes they would' and 'no they wouldn't' arguing.

But my position is that we can't say. That the issue is totally speculative beyond a few very broad principles and that we cannot say what they would have said.

We can look for limited issues for comparison, of some value.

Sorry to take away the founding fathers from anyone's arsenal, but I am.

At least unless it's well supported.

There are many examples around the world of where the citizens around the world have risen up, and many examples of how tyrannical governments attempted to disarm the populace. . . but we can discuss OTHER countries in another thread. Lets stick on US

That's fine. It's come up because in the discussion of the practicality of the citizens overthrowing tyranny, the other countries can offer some evidence.

But rather than get into Czechoslovakia 1968, Tianenman Square, Castro's Cuba or others contrasted with the Arab Spring, we can stick to the US if you like.

 

[Craig234]

I'm interested to know what book that is. At least in school and from what i remember, though it's been a while, is that the framers wanted to protect the people from the government. Doesn't it make sense in that context that the 2nd amendment *IS* to attempt to allow that? Without a scorched earth policy, the citizenry COULD be effective against the army(assuming they were ALL together in the effort).

There are really multiple books; here's one:

http://www.amazon.com/The-Founders-S.../dp/1566637929

I'm going to clarify my comments further.

I think there was definitely a strain of opinion about the threat to liberty from any government foreign AND domestic, potentially, at the time.

The question was, what was 'the reason' for the second amendment, and I put domestic tyranny concerns in a secondary - not non-existent, and not the primary - position.

And the issue was more complicated.

Read them, and you see a lot more about the same concerns in regards to a 'standing army' - THAT was what they really feared was the danger. An armed citizenry might be nice as a measure if that were to happen, but they seemed pretty strongly worried about that standing army.

So, do today's gun radicals, who share those founding father concerns about liberty threatened by our government, also share their opinion about the big threat of it being if there is a standing army, so that's what we have to not have? Of course they don't agree with them on that. They LOVE our standing military, and even while that standing military could easily be the instrument of the destruction of their liberty if their fears of tyranny came to pass, they wouldn't hear one word about not having that military.

Also, when you discuss forces people were concerned about at the time, there were foreign countries - mostly England - and our domestic federal government, but that's not all - there could even be wars between the states in theory, but also 'the people' could make up posses against criminal gangs, there could be threats from some Native American tribes, political factions that could crop up - later think of slave rebellions - many different things they could have in mind that were different situations then than now.

So the issue is not really terribly simple to get into those details, and I don't think there's a totally 'neat' answer black and white.

But a bottom line, as I said, is that the amendment could have and did not make more explicit reference to the right being to protect against our own government if they wanted.

Given that protection from foreign threats was a real issue and they wanted state militias and NOT a standing army, I think that was the primary reason for the second.

 

[Screech]

The question was, what was 'the reason' for the second amendment, and I put domestic tyranny concerns in a secondary - not non-existent, and not the primary - position.

And the issue was more complicated.

That seems a pretty reasonable argument :thumbsup:

 

[ivwshane]

I don't know but it looks pretty clear to me; A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State. And then adds what they thought was necessary at the time to make that happen.

It's also important to note what was one of the major conflicts being decided when our country was being formed and that was whether to have a strong central government or give the states the upper hand. A standing national army was seen as an unfriendly companion to liberty. Of course they recognized the importance of national security and they regulated that duty to the states.

Only if you ignore the punctuation can anyone see "the right to bear and keep arms" as a singular instruction.

And to be honest they were right. What is it that all the pro gun people fear? That the government will take their guns and if that were to happen who do you think would under go that task? Local police? Sure in anti gun areas but in pro gun communities the police wouldn't take anyone's guns, hell there were sheriffs in Nevada who said just that! No, it would be the military, a national standing army commanded by the federal government, and they would carry out the orders without question (that's what they are taught right?). Remove that power and put control of our army at the state level and there will be no need for this fear and all guns can be kept safe under state control.

 

[sixone]

The right to bear arms has a foundation in what happened after the Jacobite Rising that ended in 1745, in Scotland.

England stripped Scotland of all weapons not needed for farming and hunting. The English army decimated Scotland, under the leadership of the Duke of Cumberland, aka Butcher Billy. Thousand of people who didn't participate in the rebellion were killed, and thousands more starved.

The founding fathers saw this as recent history, as it only happened a few decades before our Revolution.

I encourage you to read up on it. It's a fascinating topic, when you consider how it affected early US history.

 

[PowerEngineer]

I don't know but it looks pretty clear to me; A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State. And then adds what they thought was necessary at the time to make that happen.

It's also important to note what was one of the major conflicts being decided when our country was being formed and that was whether to have a strong central government or give the states the upper hand. A standing national army was seen as an unfriendly companion to liberty. Of course they recognized the importance of national security and they regulated that duty to the states.

Only if you ignore the punctuation can anyone see "the right to bear and keep arms" as a singular instruction.

Seems pretty clear to me too.

But like other parts of the Constitution, the meaning of the 2nd Amendment has gradually morphed over time to keep up with changing societal norms. Not necessarily a bad thing, as it's now hard for us to understand how the founding fathers could pen the Constitution while holding slaves (which does lower my interest in arguments based on their "intent").

For better or worse, the 2nd Amendment now encompasses personal ownership of guns. As well established as the right to an abortion, the right to privacy, etc. Done deal.

I do shake my head when I hear people suggest that individuals owning guns somehow prevent our government from turning tyrannical. Does anyone really believe that AR-15 touting civilians can stand up against a modern military? Stop watching Red Dawn reruns.

 

[Craig234]

Seems pretty clear to me too.

But like other parts of the Constitution, the meaning of the 2nd Amendment has gradually morphed over time to keep up with changing societal norms. Not necessarily a bad thing, as it's now hard for us to understand how the founding fathers could pen the Constitution while holding slaves (which does lower my interest in arguments based on their "intent").

For better or worse, the 2nd Amendment now encompasses personal ownership of guns. As well established as the right to an abortion, the right to privacy, etc. Done deal.

I do shake my head when I hear people suggest that individuals owning guns somehow prevent our government from turning tyrannical. Does anyone really believe that AR-15 touting civilians can stand up against a modern military? Stop watching Red Dawn reruns.

That is such an important point, that people need to realize that the war for freedom has moved from arms to politics, and they need to realize it's just as serious a war for power and wealth and control over, fought with propaganda and media and money and they should put more effort into voting right and less into worrying about armed rebellion.