The Second Amendment is useless

This is a discussion on The Second Amendment is useless within the The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion forums, part of the Related Topics category; No, insurrection and rebellion is specifically prohibited by the Constitution. So... That didnt prevent the Civil War did it? The ONLY thing standing in the ...

Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 16 to 30 of 51

Thread: The Second Amendment is useless

  1. #16
    Senior Moderator
    Array HotGuns's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Arkansas
    Posts
    14,872
    No, insurrection and rebellion is specifically prohibited by the Constitution.
    So...
    That didnt prevent the Civil War did it?

    The ONLY thing standing in the way of dictatorship is the Constitutionally enabled elections that occur every two years.
    Unless of course we elect those that would love to be dictators...


    The Second Amendment has nothing to do with preserving our Republic.
    We shall see.
    Lets hope that we never have to find out.
    I would rather stand against the cannons of the wicked than against the prayers of the righteous.


    AR. CHL Instr. 07/02 FFL
    Like custom guns and stuff? Check this out...
    http://bobbailey1959.wordpress.com/

  2. Remove Ads

  3. #17
    Ex Member Array JOHNSMITH's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    somewhere
    Posts
    1,726
    SelfDefense, I've already replied to your statement in another thread, but again, Libertarians and Liberals are not the same thing.

    If you wish you can do some reading: Libertarianism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (libertarianism in general, not specifically Libertarian with a capital L)
    The platform of the Libertarian (capital L) party: Platform | Libertarian Party

    I don't know where you get the idea that somehow Libertarians think the judicial branch is more important than the other two, but it is entirely untrue and completely against the most basic Libertarian principles.

  4. #18
    Restricted Member Array SelfDefense's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Tucson
    Posts
    2,736
    Quote Originally Posted by paul34 View Post
    SelfDefense, I've already replied to your statement in another thread, but again, Libertarians and Liberals are not the same thing.
    No, they are not the same but both endorse and promote immoral behavior, both want government to control the will of the people (one the Legislative Branch the other the Judicial Branch), both want to weaken national security, both want to ignore foreign affairs as if other nations do not affect us, and both are for open borders. Two peas in a pod.

    If you wish you can do some reading:
    Yes, wikipedia. The source of all knowledge.

    (libertarianism in general, not specifically Libertarian with a capital L)
    I find it amusing that many want to distinguish between libertarians and libertarians.

    I don't know where you get the idea that somehow Libertarians think the judicial branch is more important than the other two, but it is entirely untrue and completely against the most basic Libertarian principles.
    Just read the many threads here that endorse using the judicial system to win big money despite the fact that there are no damages. Many think that the judicial branch protects rights and can negate the legislature. Both groups think they can define what rights are, when and who violate them and think monetary recompense is a solution to a perceived grievance. That is why libertarians and liberals uniformly despise the Patriot Act, which the People passed to make our nation safe. That is why when any seach occurs, they whine to the courts as if a court is better suited to decide the will of the people.

    The fact is that true libertarianism is as much an impossible utopia as socialism. Like liberals, libertarians live is some dream world outside the reality of society and contrary to the promotion of a successful civilization. That is why the Federalist ideals became the Constitution and the anti-Federalist ideals were defeated.

  5. #19
    BAC
    BAC is offline
    VIP Member Array BAC's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Tampa, FL
    Posts
    2,292
    SD, bud, your forte is not in a clear understanding of liberalism and libertarianism. Remark on the responses shown here, but your views are fairly out of touch with what classical and modern liberalism, and what libertarianism, actually are and do. Those educated liberals and libertarians I'm familiar with don't align themselves with any of what you claim they do; in fact, the only people who do claim to support what you describe are those who are uneducated enough in political history and philosophy to warrant their not deserving an affiliation at all. Paint with too broad a brush and you're bound to cover more than you intended; pick the broad brush intentionally and you betray ignorance about that which you're trying to cover at all.

    On topic, I do agree that the Second Amendment is effectively useless, given that nowhere within the language of the US Constitution exists the power to do what the Second Amendment protects against. The same can be said of the rest of the Bill of Rights, although I do believe that the 10th Amendment should be included somewhere near the end of the US Constitution just so that there can be no mistake.


    -B
    RIP, Jeff Dorr: 1964 - July 17, 2009. You will be missed.


    Defensive Carry Search Tips


    Step 1 - Choose a subforum on right side under "Search in Forum(s)"
    Step 2 - Type general topic of interest in "Search by Keyword" textbox.
    Step 3 - Read results and refine/repeat as necessary.

  6. #20
    VIP Member Array farronwolf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    4,773
    I hope that the 2nd amendment will never have to be used as a means to overthrow the federal government or have to be used to protect the people from the a goverment whether federal state or local. If the people did take up arms against the federal government I don't think that would necessarily be unconstitutional, since if it came to that the federal government and the people acting on the "authority" of the government would already be in violation of the constitution.

    I don't get some of the arguments made in this thread so far. If the laws passed banning assault weapons are unconstitutional, then why aren't laws passed prohibiting weapons from post office buildings or restrictions on fully auto weapons, or the laws prohibiting weapons on corps of engineer property or any other of the laws out there making it illegal for an otherwise lawfully armed citizen to carry arms unconstitutional?

    As far as liberals, libertarians, or any other political party for that matter. If somone could please post links to where in the constitution it dictates what the morals in this country should be I would certainly appreciate it. Good luck.

    Also, as far as the black robes go, wasn't it a certain set of black robes that helped get Bush into the oval office the first go around. I find it very ironic that a certain branch of government can be looked on so badly until they do something one agrees with, then they are ok.

    I also find it very odd that people on this forum are accused of wanting the government to provide lots of things for them. I haven't found that to be the case, at least not from the majority that want the federal government smaller and much more left to states rights, as the constitution says things should be.
    Just remember that shot placement is much more important with what you carry than how big a bang you get with each trigger pull.
    www.ddchl.com
    Texas CHL Instructor
    Texas Hunter Education Instructor
    NRA Instructor

  7. #21
    Restricted Member Array SelfDefense's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Tucson
    Posts
    2,736
    Quote Originally Posted by BAC View Post
    SD, bud, your forte is not in a clear understanding of liberalism and libertarianism. Remark on the responses shown here, but your views are fairly out of touch with what classical and modern liberalism, and what libertarianism, actually are and do.
    Well, classic liberalism is nothing like the modern day liberals so there is always a difference in the way comments of this sort are taken.

    Those educated liberals and libertarians I'm familiar with don't align themselves with any of what you claim they do; in fact, the only people who do claim to support what you describe are those who are uneducated enough in political history and philosophy to warrant their not deserving an affiliation at all.
    I think this speaks to talking around each other. For example, Obama is a well educated man and defined as being the most liberal Senator when he served in that capacity. I don't think anyone would question he is the poster boy for socialism, i.e. the modern liberal.

    Paint with too broad a brush and you're bound to cover more than you intended; pick the broad brush intentionally and you betray ignorance about that which you're trying to cover at all.
    Interesting thought but I use the broad brush for a number of reasons. One, this is not the forum to stray too far into detailed political idealogy. And yes, it does cover more than I intend by design. Most generalizations are like that. Take the recent controversy stirred up by Colin Powell as to whether he is 'Republican' enough. Most of his ideals are rather liberal in nature but he has always been supportive (though misguided) concerning national defense.

    Two, the broad brush should generate conversation to delve further into the minds of the many posters. I am unapprecitive of references to wikipedia but prefer someone articulating their particular beliefs and the categories they choose for themselves. That helps us all learn.

    On topic, I do agree that the Second Amendment is effectively useless, given that nowhere within the language of the US Constitution exists the power to do what the Second Amendment protects against. The same can be said of the rest of the Bill of Rights, although I do believe that the 10th Amendment should be included somewhere near the end of the US Constitution just so that there can be no mistake.
    +1

    On this, we have always and will always agree.

  8. #22
    Restricted Member Array SelfDefense's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Tucson
    Posts
    2,736
    Quote Originally Posted by farronwolf View Post
    I don't get some of the arguments made in this thread so far. If the laws passed banning assault weapons are unconstitutional, then why aren't laws passed prohibiting weapons from post office buildings or restrictions on fully auto weapons, or the laws prohibiting weapons on corps of engineer property or any other of the laws out there making it illegal for an otherwise lawfully armed citizen to carry arms unconstitutional?
    It is pretty much the libertarian view that you can do what you want on your own property. The People have decided, rightly or wrongly, to make certain Federal buildings off limits. Just a few days ago the People decided to remove national parks off the list of prohibited places (at too great a cost.) In no way does that infringe on the right to arm one's self or participate in defense of a free state.

    As far as liberals, libertarians, or any other political party for that matter. If somone could please post links to where in the constitution it dictates what the morals in this country should be I would certainly appreciate it. Good luck.
    Most people understand this is a Christian nation. It does not need to be written down but flows from our history. The dictate is just the opposite of what you suggest. The morals of this country dictated the Constitution and our laws. And the people have decided to bend our nation in a decidedly liberal direction.

    Also, as far as the black robes go, wasn't it a certain set of black robes that helped get Bush into the oval office the first go around.
    No, that would be the voters in the several states that elected Bush in 2000 and 2004.

    I find it very ironic that a certain branch of government can be looked on so badly until they do something one agrees with, then they are ok.
    That is one of my pet peeves, as well. The Court should be limited to their Constitutional responsibilities.

    I also find it very odd that people on this forum are accused of wanting the government to provide lots of things for them. I haven't found that to be the case, at least not from the majority that want the federal government smaller and much more left to states rights, as the constitution says things should be.
    I have found that most here want the Judicial Banch to dictate local laws. They want to disregard local laws if they do not agree with their neighbors on certain issues. This is the same group that thought the Heller decision should apply nationwide rather than the limited jurisdiction the Court had in that case.

    There are a few state's rights advocates here but it is not a majority opinion.

  9. #23
    VIP Member Array automatic slim's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    The western edge of The Confederacy
    Posts
    2,198
    I would have to take issue with you equating "treason" with armed revolt. The founders clearly gave us the second amendment so that we "the people" could resist tyranny as they had. They considered treason to be the act of overthrowing the government they bestowed on us, but they also recognized the fact that the government was subject to evolving into something akin to what they had just overthrown. Even Thomas Jefferson recognized our RKBA was a "last resort" against a tyrannical government.
    "First gallant South Carolina nobly made the stand."
    Edge of Darkness

  10. #24
    Restricted Member Array SelfDefense's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Tucson
    Posts
    2,736
    Quote Originally Posted by automatic slim View Post
    Even Thomas Jefferson recognized our RKBA was a "last resort" against a tyrannical government.
    Yawn.
    |
    |
    |
    \ /
    '

  11. #25
    Member Array Tombstone55's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Paradise
    Posts
    144
    I love the know it all types. The second admendment was established to protect citizens from their government.

  12. #26
    VIP Member Array edr9x23super's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    2,108
    If those who believe the second amendment is useless, I say go live in England or Australia; Just how long do you think your precious freedoms would last if we didn't have the RKBA?

    As far as tyranny goes, it exists in our country today. No, you don't have to stop paying your property taxes to find that out, either. Your property can become attractive to corrupt politicians who can then use eminent domain laws to legally take property that has been in your family for generations and build a casino or some other development on it to improve tax revenues for the governmental entity in question.

    The country we live in has not changed one bit, but the people have. By that I say look at the men who founded this country and compare them to the fools and buffoons we have elected today. The men who founded this country were educated men who had firsthand knowledge of what tyranny was all about. The government they set up was an exercise in the balance of power between one branch versus the other; in a way, this mimics nature in that for every action, there is a reaction. Yes, the original country they formed was flawed and they knew it would eventually have to be addressed or we would suffer a civil war or revolution to correct it. John Adams and Thomas Jefferson discussed this at length when they debated states rights and the slavery issues. So civil wars and revolutions are necessary from time to time to restore the natural balance of things; this balance can be restored through voting for changes in the government, or they can occur violently through civlil wars or revolts. Those who would do us harm don't have to attack us directly, because they know that would result in failure. They have worked to destroy us from within. They accomplish this by dumbing down our population, accepting hordes of uneducated immigrants with the promise of free benefits, etc. By manufacturing economic crashes, they make the people more dependent on the federal government. During the great depression this was very difficult to bring about because our society was still mostly rural, and there was no money, but by and large there was enough food for most of the population, so at least people survived.

    Think about something like that happening now? How many of us are totally dependent on that paycheck to get us our food at HEB, Krogers or the local grocery? Yes, the second amendment has its use, and it is still just as valid as the other freedoms enumerated for us in the bill of rights.

    I personally believe that we are approaching just such an event in our country. I see the 2 sides becoming as polarized as they did back in 1860, and neither side appears to be backing off.
    "Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are inevitably ruined". - Patrick Henry

  13. #27
    Senior Member Array 2edgesword's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    New York
    Posts
    653
    SelfDefense

    "The Second Amendment was never intended to provide the means to overthrow the government. It was forced on the Republic so that states would be able to form militias to defend the union of states. The Second is simply a prohibition on the Federal government, nothing more."

    A couple of quick points since I'm frustrated that I spent 30 minutes typing a lengthy response only to have it erased....

    The 9th Circuit Court (one I'm not accustom to referencing) would disagree with you (Nordyke v King)...

    Second, the right to bear arms is a protection against the possibility that even our own government could degenerate into tyranny, and though this may seem unlikely, this possibility should be guarded against with individual diligence.

    It is illogical to interpret Artical 3, Section 3 of the Constitution to mean that under all circumstance revolt against the United States constitutes treason against the principles on which the United States is founded given the reasoning given in the Declaration of Independence for separation from England.

    The Declaration of Independence is the founding document of this country. It sets forth the principles on which this country is founded and the Constitution was the guidebook for how government was suppost to protect the inalienable God given rights of the people.

    While avenues were incorporated in the Constitution for addressing grievances I seriously doubt, given my study of Revolutionary War history and the lives of the Founders, that they would view that under no circumstances, even in light of the fact that a majority of the people agreed with a provision of law that was in violation of a fundamental right, that rebellion was totally out of the question.

    Only about a third of the Colonial population supported the decision to separate from England. Another third (along with the majority of the English population) did not support the revolt while another third was ambivalent. If the means by which revolt is defined as treason is popularity the Founders and a good portion of the population (not 51%) were traitors.

    BTW, your statement that no one is out to take our firearms is a clear indication that you don't live in one of the downstate counties of NY.

  14. #28
    Senior Member Array 2edgesword's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    New York
    Posts
    653
    Regarding article 3, section 3...

    as mentioned in my earlier post given the comtemporary historical context in which this section of the Constitution was written it is illogical to believe that this section viewed rebellion against the United States under any circumstances as treason. Given that context this section presupposes that the United States was still principle founded on the fundamental principles espoused in the Declaration of Independence. The idea that a rebellion against a "United States" that was trampling on the fundamental rights of its citizens was treason ignors the principles that were used to justify the Revolution.

  15. #29
    Restricted Member Array SelfDefense's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Tucson
    Posts
    2,736
    Quote Originally Posted by 2edgesword View Post
    A couple of quick points since I'm frustrated that I spent 30 minutes typing a lengthy response only to have it erased....
    I hate when that happens...

    The 9th Circuit Court (one I'm not accustom to referencing) would disagree with you (Nordyke v King)...

    Second, the right to bear arms is a protection against the possibility that even our own government could degenerate into tyranny, and though this may seem unlikely, this possibility should be guarded against with individual diligence.
    I'm sure you are aware that the Ninth is the most overturned court. There is a reason for that. Their opinion in Nordyke, which I will not quote, is not only wrongheaded but procedurally wrong as they are required to follow precedence. Chief Justice Waite delivered the opinion of the Court in Cruikshank:

    "The right there specified is that of 'bearing arms for a lawful purpose.' This is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed; but this, as has been seen, means no more than that it shall not be infringed by Congress. This is one of the amendments that has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the national government, leaving the people to look for their protection against any violation by their fellow-citizens of the rights it recognizes, to what is called, in The City of New York v. Miln, 11 Pet. 139, the 'powers which relate to merely municipal legislation, or what was, perhaps, more properly called internal police,' 'not surrendered or restrained' by the Constituton of the United States."

    Many people fear tyranny in our government but it is simply not possible. We have elections every two years.

    It is illogical to interpret Artical 3, Section 3 of the Constitution to mean that under all circumstance revolt against the United States constitutes treason against the principles on which the United States is founded given the reasoning given in the Declaration of Independence for separation from England.
    I am unconcerned with Article 3 Section 3 in this context. The pertinent clause is found in Article 1, Section 8, which provides the power to Congress to supress insurrections.

    BTW, your statement that no one is out to take our firearms is a clear indication that you don't live in one of the downstate counties of NY.
    I was referring to the Federal government. The people of the states can do as they please though most protect the right to keep and bear arms in their constitutions.

  16. #30
    Moderator
    Array RETSUPT99's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Central Florida
    Posts
    44,668
    Lots of debate here, so far...

    And so exactly what has changed?

    If only pigs could fly!
    The last Blood Moon Tetrad for this millennium starts in April 2014 and ends in September 2015...according to NASA.

    ***********************************
    Certified Glock Armorer
    NRA Life Member[/B]

Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast

Links

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Similar Threads

  1. WA Supreme Court: 2nd Amendment applies to the states via 14th Amendment due process
    By ExSoldier in forum The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: April 11th, 2010, 04:35 PM
  2. CCW permit will be useless now?
    By Northface in forum Concealed Carry Issues & Discussions
    Replies: 39
    Last Post: November 17th, 2009, 07:13 PM
  3. A Useless Feature
    By Euclidean in forum Defensive Carry Guns
    Replies: 30
    Last Post: November 22nd, 2005, 05:10 PM
  4. .17 - useless?
    By P95Carry in forum Defensive Ammunition & Ballistics
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: May 15th, 2005, 12:15 PM
  5. Useless Information
    By Bumper in forum Off Topic & Humor Discussion
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: January 9th, 2005, 05:11 PM

Search tags for this page

2nd amendment useless

,
amendment 7 useless?
,
amendment that are useless
,
amendments that are pointless
,
amendments that are useless
,

armed revolt declaration of independence

,
constitution of independence second amendment
,
second amendment useless
,

the second amendment is useless

,
useless admendment
,
what amendment 2 is useless
,
why is the second amendment useless
Click on a term to search for related topics.