Defensive Carry banner

The Second Amendment is useless

5K views 50 replies 23 participants last post by  socal2310 
#1 ·
Feeling a little bummed right now so I wrote this rather depressing hit piece on the 2A. Or is it reverse psychology?

---------------------------------

The Second Amendment is in place to provide the means and legitimacy of armed rebellion and revolt. Such action must meet a certain ill-defined standard, which is the limiting of essential freedoms by the Federal government. The Declaration of Independence is our guiding document of why armed revolt may be necessary. It could have been written yesterday, changing just a few words and names. The Constitution, however, prohibits armed revolt (Article 3 Section 3 "Treason"), and it was born of the same manner of men who signed the Declaration of Independence. The Constitution is also arguably a more 'official' document of the USA than is the Declaration, issued many years before the USA was formed. While some may argue that an amendment supersedes the original document, this is not quite true here, as the Bill of Rights were a kept promise of inclusion from the time of the original signing.

If the Founding Fathers were to return to us today, they would not recognize this country, and would wonder why we have let it become what it is.

In the history of the USA no group has challenged the Federal government for control through armed revolt. The War Between the States was a military action to sustain the Union more than it was an armed secession. Never was it a revolt.

For what purpose will the People use the Second Amendment; for what purposes would there be widespread confederation? How many of the People must unite before the Federal government crushes the movement? How many of the People must unite before the Federal government cedes? How many of the People have the stomach for domestic battle? How will the People organize? What battle strategy will they utilize? Where will their bases be? How will the People know when it is time to fight, and how will they know it is too late?

For what purpose would an attorney use the Second Amendment as a defense? Would the judiciary, or the People, accept such a defense?

We have a modern professional military within our own borders, the militia will not be fighting any battles on the front lines inside the USA.

We have a Supreme Court Decision (Heller), the Firearm Owner's Protection Act and other principles of law that protect our right to own firearms. No one will be taking our guns.

Perhaps a few revolts along the way would have benefited our nation. They would have kept the Federal government on notice that we are in charge, and kept the People in practice and attuned to the occasional necessity of refreshing out Liberty Tree with Franklin's 'blood of patriots and tyrants'.

I can not today see any scenario when a modern militia movement will stand up to the Federal government. The Second Amendment will never be used, therefore it is useless.
 
See less See more
#2 ·
The Second Amendment is in place to provide the means and legitimacy of armed rebellion and revolt. Such action must meet a certain ill-defined standard, which is the limiting of essential freedoms by the Federal government.
That is wrong, as you convince yourself a little later on. 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.

The Declaration of Independence is our guiding document of why armed revolt may be necessary. It could have been written yesterday, changing just a few words and names.
This is also misguided. The Declaration of Independence is the guiding document as to why we declared independence from the monarchal tyranny. Again, nothing more. It could be rewritten, if people chose, but it will then lose all of its meaning.

The Constitution, however, prohibits armed revolt (Article 3 Section 3 "Treason"), and it was born of the same manner of men who signed the Declaration of Independence. The Constitution is also arguably a more 'official' document of the USA than is the Declaration, issued many years before the USA was formed. While some may argue that an amendment supersedes the original document, this is not quite true here, as the Bill of Rights were a kept promise of inclusion from the time of the original signing.
That is correct. Treason is against the Constitution as is insurrection. The United States will put down any armed revolt, which is why the talk of revolution here and elsewhere has no place in the Republic.

If the Founding Fathers were to return to us today, they would not recognize this country, and would wonder why we have let it become what it is.
That is true. The people have allowed the Federal government more power than was envisioned. Unfortunately many, even most here, want the Federal government to make every decision in our personal lives. The concept of the United States is....wait for it...united states. It is not an overarching Federal government that controls the states. It is the states that have empowered the Federal government.

In the history of the USA no group has challenged the Federal government for control through armed revolt. The War Between the States was a military action to sustain the Union more than it was an armed secession. Never was it a revolt.
That is true.

For what purpose will the People use the Second Amendment;
The Second Amendment is a prohibition on the Federal government. It is not a tool to be used. It is a guiding principle, which has never been violated. (Except for the short lived AWB.)

for what purposes would there be widespread confederation?
Only to ensure state's rights, but liberals and libertarians are uninerested in pursuing the principles of the Founders.

How many of the People must unite before the Federal government crushes the movement?
The answer is one. Anyone who commits treason or criminally acts against Federal w will be caught and prosecuted.

How many of the People must unite before the Federal government cedes?
This is the question that is most easily answered. 51%.

How many of the People have the stomach for domestic battle?
I know I will fight to serve the United States. Oh, you were talking about the enemy. Sorry...

For what purpose would an attorney use the Second Amendment as a defense? Would the judiciary, or the People, accept such a defense?
Defense of what? Attacking the United States?

We have a Supreme Court Decision (Heller), the Firearm Owner's Protection Act and other principles of law that protect our right to own firearms. No one will be taking our guns.
That is correct. No one is coming to take our guns. Not now. Not in the future. Unless we are so weakened by policies as to be defeated by the enemy, which so many discount now because of our great military and intelligence successes.

Perhaps a few revolts along the way would have benefited our nation. They would have kept the Federal government on notice that we are in charge, and kept the People in practice and attuned to the occasional necessity of refreshing out Liberty Tree with Franklin's 'blood of patriots and tyrants'.
I think it was Jefferson who wanted to overthrow the government because his ideas were soundly defeated at the outset. The truth is that we are in charge. The People. Us. That you disagree with the direction our nation has taken has but one viable response. Convince your neighbors to elect politicians that will promote American values. It really is that simple.

I can not today see any scenario when a modern militia movement will stand up to the Federal government. The Second Amendment will never be used, therefore it is useless.
Yes, the Second Amendment is useless. It provides no power to the limited, enumerated powers of the Federal government.
 
#4 ·
SO far 94 views and no one else wants in to the debate?
Because it is far easier to bash the Government, Democrats, Republicans, AK47's, Glocks, and on and on in one sentence than it is to present an actual coherent reason as to why one holds that opinion.

For example: All Democrats are idiots. The AK is FAR superior to the AR! SHTF is coming next month!

Now I'm sure you will ask me why I didn't contribute to your debate. Well, I joined this forum to learn as I don't know enough about what is going on. Give me time to absorb and then I will freely join in to debates with facts to back me up.

Just my 2 cents.....
 
#5 ·
Self Defense : I read 1/2 of your post and couldn't go any further.... because at that point I could not disagree with you more.

I think ya'all need to go back and read what the hell was really going on in England for about 200 yrs prior to the American Revolution. You will see there, the reason for many of the things in the Constitution from property rights, religious freedom, and the 2nd Amendment.

I read alot of letters written by my 13th great grandfather who came to Pennsylvania in 1687. IN one , he was writing friends / family in England, which essentially was telling them a family friend had died...... but , because no-one knew with the chaos, wars, etc. going on that any of his family there would even be alive, he willed his things to people in America. The Govt was highly "restrictive" and used force to insure them.... if they wanted your property, it was taken... if you wife and daughter were raped in the Process (as happened in one relative's case, and when he tried to stop them he was shot and killed), so what.

George Fox (Quaker religion) was put in prison because his views (which compare a lot to what ended up the Constitution) of fighting for "people's rights and resistance to a tyrannical Govt" incorporated in his religious views (all men are created equal ) ... resulted in him going to prison a few times.

The 2nd Amendment, was "key" in over-throwing the Govt if tyranny over-took the Govt, and in protecting yourself FROM the Govt..... they figured an armed populace could not be "forced" as they had to put up with having NO rights at all. The VERY IDEA that EVERY PERSON had RIGHTS.... was unheard of until then. That thought had not even crossed people's minds in charge of the Govt (incl the King, etc.).

What would they think about today ? READ !!!!! Look at the world they lived in, and then ask that question..... you'll have your answer.
 
#8 · (Edited)
Lets see when it comes to 2A, I understand it simply. It states "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." After fighting a 2 year long war where the government militias had tried to disarm the public I would make dang certain that the people not a tyrannical government militia had arms. That's one thing that people gloss over, the British forces were often Americans that were loyal to the crown.
Second of all is the fact the purpose clause "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State," Is separated. Considering the fact that militias were the main force of all military might of the day, and that large standing armies were often the tool of oppressive governments. I think our founders wanted a militia based national defense, with a very small standing army.
Also the use of the word State, instead of country, or other such wording of a large nation shows an early aversion to a completely federal system, but more of a nation of individual States. All of which are separate, but united in certain limited ways. Thus to avoid a overly centralized government that could more easily be taken over and turn tyrannical.
 
#37 ·
I think one of the keys is the wording itself. Notice the use of the word "free" as in "the security of a free State". Unless we are to believe that the author and the politicians back then didn't think much about what they were writing, they must have had a reason to put that there. The constitution allows for the creation of a national army, which would protect the United States as a whole. So why would a "well regulated militia" be "necessary to the security of a free state"?
And lets not forget that our fearless leaders at that time were traitors.
They had been involved in an armed insurrection against their lawful government and sovereign. If the rebellion had failed they would have hanged, and possible drawn and quartered and all that other good stuff. So I would think it entirely in keeping with their philosophy and values to provide the population with the means to overthrow their government by force of arms if/when it was believed to be necessary.

The consititution is definitely a flawed document, but it sure beats the alternative. I think what would really improve it is an amendment that spells out the necessary steps for a state to secede. Without the option of secession, states aren't really "free" or "sovereign". They are just semi autonomous slaves to the federal government.
 
#9 ·
Thus to avoid a overly centralized government that could more easily be taken over and turn tyrannical.
Well, the Civil War pretty much took care of that and settled it.

Now we have an overly centralized government that is becoming more tryrannical with each passing president. It's a government that is out of control and it is doing things that it was never meant to do.
 
#10 ·
Well, the Civil War pretty much took care of that and settled it.
The Civil War did not change the Constitution (other than the 13-15 Amendments.) It did not fundamentally change the Republic of the United States. It did not obviate the Tenth Amendment.

Now we have an overly centralized government that is becoming more tryrannical with each passing president. It's a government that is out of control and it is doing things that it was never meant to do.
No, the government is not tyrannical in any sense of the word. It is disturbing that some use that word while not understanding what real governmental tyranny represents. We are, by far, the most free people on Earth. We have a government of the people and by the people. We have frequent elections and states that are experiments in self government. Some fail (like California) and other states learn fro the failures as wellas the successes of other states.

Yes, the Federal government is out of control because that is what the people want. The mix of statists, liberals and libertarians, who want the Federal government to control every aspect of their lives have succeeded in granting powers to the government that were never intended.

Of the named offending groups, it is the libertarians that are creating the greatest harm. Under the guise of 'rights' they encourage and empower the judicial branch to tyrannize the population, delegating the People's responsibilities to five robed oligarchs to make their decisions for them. Since they are aligned with the liberals it is difficult to implement the ideals of the Founders of our Federalist government.
 
#13 ·
[The Civil War did not change the Constitution (other than the 13-15 Amendments.) It did not fundamentally change the Republic of the United States. It did not obviate the Tenth Amendment.
Wrong. It wiped out states rights, among other things.It incorporated the Federal Government, and everything that the South feared came to be. Even today we have seen discussion of several states leaving the Union because of the heavy handed tactics of a Federal Government that is hostile to the beliefs of many people.All is not well, and if you think it is, you are putting your head in the sand.

No, the government is not tyrannical in any sense of the word.
Don't think so? Try not paying your property tax for a few years and you will learn the definition of tyranny first hand.


Yes, the Federal government is out of control because that is what the people want.
NO ONE wants the Federal Government to be out of control. Saying that people want it, because we have it, is like saying Mr.John Public wanted to die because he was speeding when he lost control of his vehicle and got killed.

It just doesn't work that way.

The mix of statists, liberals and libertarians, who want the Federal government to control every aspect of their lives have succeeded in granting powers to the government that were never intended.
I don't know why you see Libertarians as such a threat to society. They have the least amount of influence and their party is basically insignificant in the big scheme of things.

Along with most of your rhetoric, it just doesn't make any sense. You call the group with the LEAST influence a threat, yet you say that most of the people want to be controlled and most of them probably cant even spell Libertarian.

Which one is it?

Of the named offending groups, it is the libertarians that are creating the greatest harm. Under the guise of 'rights' they encourage and empower the judicial branch to tyrannize the population, delegating the People's responsibilities to five robed oligarchs to make their decisions for them. Since they are aligned with the liberals it is difficult to implement the ideals of the Founders of our Federalist government.
I think you are confused. I actually know several Libertarians and there is nothing liberal about them. In fact, even suggesting to one that they are liberal is a good way to put your fighting skills to the test.

Perhaps you think they are a threat because they actually know what they want, unlike the fools that vote for those that promise them a free ride?If the Libertarians didn't embrace the free"drug"use platform, they probably would be the biggest party with the most influence.Is that what scares you?

Or is the fact that you could lose your livelihood if the Federal Government comes apart at the seams and society and the lifestyles that we enjoy today cease to exist? Living in a vacuum,and believing a lie wont change any of that. Worshiping the Federal Government and believing that things are out of control because the people really want it that way shows a serious lack of understanding of human nature.

As for the intent of the topic, if the the Second Amendment was as useless as the OP thinks says it was, we would be like every other country in the world where private ownership of weapons is either illegal or severely restricted.

The Second Amendment is the ONLY reason that we can still possess guns. It is the Presidents, Congressmen, Senators, Judges,Governors, Mayors,and every other legislator that fears the very thing that could stop them from either acting like Dictators or becoming one that continue to whittle away at the Second Amendment piece by piece,little by little.Look at the present administration.

If the Second was useless, would they spend any time trash talking it every chance they get? Would they walk across the street to stomp on it if it meant nothing? I think not.

The Second Amendment is the ONLY thing standing in the way of a total dictatorship. When the people have had enough, then, and only then will they work together to fix it, with force if need be. Will they be successful? Could they be successful?

Only God above knows the answer to that one.
 
#15 ·
Wrong. It wiped out states rights, among other things.It incorporated the Federal Government, and everything that the South feared came to be. Even today we have seen discussion of several states leaving the Union because of the heavy handed tactics of a Federal Government that is hostile to the beliefs of many people.All is not well, and if you think it is, you are putting your head in the sand.
I never said all was well. Only that the Federal government is still directed by the Constitution, no matter how it is misshaped to suit political purposes. What I am saying is that states are sovereign and there is a growing Tenth Amendment movement to ensure people understand the principles that SHOULD BE TAUGHT TO EVERY SCHOOL CHILD. The Civil War did not change the fundamental principles of the United States. Wrongly, the Civil War enforced a national (and correct concept) on the states and rightly forced the states to continue the Union. Of course, the states that seceeded did not have to take part in Congress, but they did.

Don't think so? Try not paying your property tax for a few years and you will learn the definition of tyranny first hand.
That is not tyranny. That is obeying the law the people enacted. That is the problem here. ome think that duly passed legislation, the will of the people, is tyrannical simply because some people disagree. I don't like driving 55 MPH but when that is the speed limit I do not complain that it is tyranny.

NO ONE wants the Federal Government to be out of control. Saying that people want it, because we have it, is like saying Mr.John Public wanted to die because he was speeding when he lost control of his vehicle and got killed.
No, they don't want it out of control they want it to control. Many of us understand that a controlling central government, not abiding the limited powers the states provided to the Federal government, is out of control.

I don't know why you see Libertarians as such a threat to society. They have the least amount of influence and their party is basically insignificant in the big scheme of things.
I think that ignored the reality. As the 'greens' that voted for Nader probably prevented Gore from becoming President, the libertarians allowed Soetoro to become president. Voting for out of touch people like Paul and Barr makes it so the domestic enemy can control the government. Intentionally doing so makes those people no better than liberals, certainly. Worse, libertarians want the Judicial Branch to rule the nation. They delegate the People's responsibility to five appointed oligarchs. I have never seen groups so enthralled with suing and using the judicial branch to further their goals as libertarians and liberals.

Along with most of your rhetoric, it just doesn't make any sense. You call the group with the LEAST influence a threat, yet you say that most of the people want to be controlled and most of them probably cant even spell Libertarian.
Many of the voters cannot speak English, no less spell libertarian.

I think you are confused. I actually know several Libertarians and there is nothing liberal about them. In fact, even suggesting to one that they are liberal is a good way to put your fighting skills to the test.
I think the debate is a good way to demonstrate that many of the same goals and means to achieve them are shared by both groups. I have found that every libertarian disagrees, which is why I attempt to make them see the error of their ways.

Perhaps you think they are a threat because they actually know what they want, unlike the fools that vote for those that promise them a free ride?
No, I think they are a threat the same way he Federalists realized the anti-Federalists were a threat to the Republic. The commonalities may be a given. The distinctions are all important.

If the Libertarians didn't embrace the free"drug"use platform, they probably would be the biggest party with the most influence.Is that what scares you?
It is not just the immoral leanings of libertarians. It is they have no concept or respect for society. They think that they can solely determine whose rights are violated and if they are violated, thus they support abortion, drug use, no borders and are against any form of regulation that helps the public. They are nconcerned with the effect they have on society.

Or is the fact that you could lose your livelihood if the Federal Government comes apart at the seams and society and the lifestyles that we enjoy today cease to exist?
Not the former, though I expect libertarians join liberals in wanting to dismantle national defense but the latter, where the anti-Federalist principles would, in fact, cause our lifestyles to deterirate markedly.


Worshiping the Federal Government and believing that things are out of control because the people really want it that way shows a serious lack of understanding of human nature.
You seem to be describing the libertarian reliance on the Judicial Branch to determine our rights and that the states and indivduals should be completely controlled by the robed oligarchs. That is worship. Worship with the hope the gods will rule in your favor.

As for the intent of the topic, if the the Second Amendment was as useless as the OP thinks says it was, we would be like every other country in the world where private ownership of weapons is either illegal or severely restricted.
There has not been a single time in our history that the Federal government as tried to confiscate weapons. The Second Amendment has nothing to do with that. It is the principles of the Republic that allow us the freedom to defend ourselves and our nation as is written in virtually every state constitution.

The Second Amendment is the ONLY reason that we can still possess guns.
Nonsense. The Arizona constitution protects my right to keep and bear arms.

It is the Presidents, Congressmen, Senators, Judges,Governors, Mayors,and every other legislator that fears the very thing that could stop them from either acting like Dictators or becoming one that continue to whittle away at the Second Amendment piece by piece,little by little.Look at the present administration.
Yes, look at the present Congress. They just passed a gun friendly law. The Court recently opined that the DC gun ban was unconstitutional. The fact is that throughout our history there has never been a time when the people wanted to disarm themselves. Never. And since we are the governent it will never happen in the future, either.

If the Second was useless, would they spend any time trash talking it every chance they get? Would they walk across the street to stomp on it if it meant nothing? I think not.
Kids kick a can along the street. Does that make the can valuable? You are forgetting that gun rights have been expanded. States have enacted concealed carry laws and created 'Castle Doctrine' laws. The fear on this forum is not dissimilar to the fears of the anti-Federalists, people who do not fully understand our form of government.

The Second Amendment is the ONLY thing standing in the way of a total dictatorship. When the people have had enough, then, and only then will they work together to fix it, with force if need be. Will they be successful? Could they be successful?
No, insurrection and rebellion is specifically prohibited by the Constitution. The ONLY thing standing in the way of dictatorship is the Constitutionally enabled elections that occur every two years. The Second Amendment has nothing to do with preserving our Republic.
 
#14 ·
It is MHO that the Second Amendment isn't only about keeping our government in check, I believe that we as the militia (not the National Guard) are duty bound to supplement our national forces, military, LEO, etc., in times of need or attack. The military would have to mobilize, and the LEO may be under manned. If an attack such as the one in Mumbai happened here, it will be individuals from the CC community that will be some of the first responders, this is why I think the 2A is just a relevant today as it was when written, Just MO.
 
#16 ·
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.
 
#17 ·
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.
 
#18 ·
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. :rolleyes:

(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.
 
#19 ·
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
 
#21 ·
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.
 
#20 ·
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.
 
#22 ·
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 :wink: 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.
 
#23 ·
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.
 
#26 ·
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.
 
#27 ·
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.
 
#29 ·
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.
 
#28 ·
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.
 
#30 ·
Lots of debate here, so far...:ticking:

And so exactly what has changed?:rofl:

If only pigs could fly!:tumbleweed:
 
#33 ·
"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."

Whether it is treason or insurrection understanding the intent and meaning must be within the historical context in which these articles were written.

An insurrection against a government that is trampling on the fundamental rights of its citizens is an insurrection in name only if that insurrection is believe to be the only means to restore those fundamental rights.
 
#35 ·
Self Defense : I don't think you've read anyting related to 'England and the 200 years prior to the Revolution, if you say you do not understand what that has to do with the USA or the Constitution.

Sorry bud, but one of my great..... grandfather's was in the Continental Congress and voting on the Constitution.... I'll go by what he wrote & several others for 100 + years prior to that, and what they said.... over your opinion of what you think they thought.
 
#36 ·
Wow what an educational expierience this is! I love our Country. Thank you one and all for contributing your insights. Once again I realize the more I read the Forum the more I need to read and learn elsewhere. Thanks again to all.
 
#38 ·
As I pointed out earlier, words on a sheet of paper didnt prevent the first succession of states.Whether it is actually legal or not matters little.

Men of action will do what they need to do regardless of what anyone says or thinks...and it will be the same the next time around.
 
#39 ·
Wow what an educational expierience this is! I love our Country. Thank you one and all for contributing your insights.
+1 I agree, I have learned so much since joining this forum. It also goes to show that the citizens of this country that have choosen to carry aren't the ignorant *******'s the liberal media likes to portray us as, that we are actually very well educate and productive members of society, and I tip my hat (so to speak) to each and every one of you!:hand10:
 
#40 ·
But Hotguns there have previously been made arguments that the Constitution does not allow secession, and that once a state always a state. If we can get all of these states that are sending sovereignty notices and resolutions to D.C. to sponsor and pass an amendment that argument would on its face be invalid.
If it were passed and ratified each state could decide, just as the colonies did, that if the current government no longer is meeting their needs, they can opt out.
The key would be to have a recognized legal process that has been followed for the world to see. If it is specifically allowed by the Constitution, it can't be "unconstitutional". If the steps are carried out as described by law, how could it be "illegal"? An following a legal process as written in our Constitution could hardly be called "treason".
 
#41 ·
I haven't read the entire thread. It's too long. So please forgive me if I've repeated something.

The Civil War was not fought over slavery. It was fought over states rights. The South had more abolitionist organizations than the North prior to the Civil War. However the extremists in the North wanted the government to force the south to outlaw slavery immediately, while the South wanted to phase it out, allowing for their economy to adjust and for the slaves to recieve education and job training so they could go and find jobs. The result of the Civil War was the collapse of the Southern economy and the large number of African Americans on wellfare now.

The militia was intended to consist of all able-bodied men with arms. Therefor the debate about whether the 2nd amendment applies to the people or the miltary is moot. THE PEOPLE ARE THE MILITARY! In time of war they would be called to service and then go back to being civilians once the war was over.

The Founders never intended to have a standing army. You can find numerous quotes from them saying that having a standing army would threaten liberty. Why? Because if the Federal government ever got out of control, they wanted the people to be able to revolt against it. Benjamin Franklin even went so far as to say that we needed to have one every twenty years!
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top