2nd Amendment. What's it all about, Alfie?

[DBP]

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.

There’s been debate over these terms “Militia” and “State,” but the operative part is: “. . . the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

So be it. We have a right to bear arms.

Let’s take a look at how that right came about now, shall we?

The Second Amendment is somewhat of a paradox when you think about it. In these words we see government, which normally reserves to itself a “monopoly on violence,” granting that citizens, too, may resort to force of arms when “security” requires it.

And when might that be? Oh, just in case the government – the same Government that codified all the rights, mind you – should need to be overthrown someday. (Sic semper tyrannis, baby!)

Actually, there’s a kind of crude logic to this. There’s no denying that even the best-laid governments gang awry. In the 1780s, with the recent depradations of King George III still fresh, Americans were looking a bulwark against history repeating with the Feds in the role of KG III. They found just such a bulwark in the Second Amendment.

Following the Revolution, the United States was governed by the Articles of Confederation. Federalists argued that this government had an unworkable division of power between Congress and the states caused military weakness, as the standing army was reduced to as few as 80 men. They considered it to be bad that there was no effective federal military crackdown to an armed tax rebellion in western Massachusetts known as Shays’ Rebellion.

Anti-federalists on the other hand took the side of limited government and sympathized with the rebels, many of whom were former Revolutionary War soldiers. Subsequently, the Philadelphia Convention proposed in 1787 to grant Congress exclusive power to raise and support a standing army and navy of unlimited size. Anti-federalists objected to the shift of power from the states to the federal government, but as adoption of the Constitution became more and more likely, they shifted their strategy to establishing a bill of rights that would put some limits on federal power.

Full article:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

All well and good, but that was nearly 225 years ago. In those 2.25 centuries, when, oh when, have the American people even come close to needing to take up arms to protect themselves from the federal government?

–Never, that’s when! Unless you count that one time when a bunch of hoo-haws tried to insist on their “right” to enslave people. In that case – the one case where the federal government took up arms against its own (disloyal) subjects – the government was right and the subjects were wrong.

Since the nation’s founding, we’ve seen the government falter in its judgment at times. We’ve also seen times of Constitutional stress and strain. But never has there been a time when our government as a whole was anything less than democractic and Constitutional. To say nothing of tyrannical.

So what’s all this business about needing guns to protect ourselves from government? We ARE the government.

For better or worse . . .

Share This

[Bostonman]

So you’re saying because it hasn’t happened it won’t happen? That dogs not gonna hunt. Its not just against our government but also foreign invaders. Can you imagine the urban warfare that any invading contry would have to deal with if they got into the United States? Its almost enough to keep anyone from even trying.

Share This

[JoB]

Bostonman…

“Can you imagine the urban warfare that any invading contry would have to deal with if they got into the United States? Its almost enough to keep anyone from even trying. “

no.. but it is a good argument for any invading country to use the most devastating weapons in it’s arsenal against our major urban areas…

Share This

[test517]

Wow is this a interesting view of history. First off, I think you are forgetting the war of 1812 that was fought initially by citizen militias. Seconding the ‘hoo-haws’ were not insisting on their right to have slaves, they had slaves, they were trying secede from the union to form a new nation where they not be subject to the perceived mandates of a central authority. The civil war was not about slavery, it was about whether the federal government could impose its laws on the states without the consent of the people of the state. Slavery was the moral issue that brought this conflict about.

Like it or not, the second amendment has become engrained into American Society. Until American society changes to the point where gun ownership is widely unpopular, this is not going to change. Arguing the meaning and validity of the second amendment is a waste of time. If you want to pursue this I would advise arguing the effects it has on current society.

Cheers

Share This

[TDe]

Digressing from the Second Amendment for a moment –

Saying that the Civil War was not about slavery is rather like saying that WWII in Europe wasn’t about stopping the Nazi takeover of other countries with organized theft, genocide, torture, fear and force, it was about whether or not the allied nations had the right to impose their will on a sovereign nation who’s ideology differed from our own.

“…they were trying secede from the union to form a new nation where they not be subject to the perceived mandates of a central authority.”

And almost all those mandates revolved around slavery by the way, which was the economic driver of the South… unpaid forced labor and all…

Of course the Civil War was about slavery. The South’s entire economy was built on slavery and that house of cards began to be threatened by rumblings from the North. There were at least 5 main causes of the Civil War (very few things in this life are ever a simple either/or) and most of those causes were related directly to slavery:

http://americanhistory.about.com/od/civilwarmenu/a/cause_civil_war.htm

Sorry, test517, but I get my back up when horror is sugar-coated with semantics to make it sound simple and almost viable. Nor do I applaud when posters on the forums are informed about what is and isn’t a waste of time. Just saying a thing doesn’t make it so and trying to stop a conversation is a bit arrogant in my book.

But, closing on that note…cheers to you, as well.

Share This

[DBP]

Thank you for that digression, TDe.

You can digress me any time you like.

:-)

Share This

[test517]

TDe,

(some further digression folks)

First off it is not my intention to sugar coat or gloss over the horrors of slaver, but I do feel that the fight was more of states rights than this institution. I feel that slavery was the moral question of the day but the succession did not happen until the election of Lincoln. This moral issue had been simmering for a long time before the 1860’s but it wasn’t until there was the threat of abolition at the federal level that the succession happened. Right or wrong that is my opinion and my understanding of that part of history.

As for the arguing of the second amendment, I seriously think that both sides are locked in a futile argument about the intent of the people who wrote it. We did not live in their time and they do not live in ours. It is law of the land right now, but DBP is right, we are the government, so instead of going back in forth about what John Adams or Thomas Jefferson where thinking and intending, can we please start talking about what role gun ownership means in today’s society.

I am sorry that you find me arrogant.

Cheers

D

Share This

[JanS]

yo, test517…it’s not up to you to dictate what is posted on these forums. Simply put..if you don’t like what is being said in a thread, you have absolutely every right to not join in. I have learned that the hard way on here :)

Share This

[kootchman]

As I believe it to be. In a citizenry, armed, the convening authority of a “well regulated militia” would mean, a free citizenry, joining that “well regulated miltia” would arrive, with their weapons in tow. The continental Army did not issue weapons you brought your own,, There was no federal armory to dispense weapons when that militia arrived. To insure a militia was in fact armed, it was congressional thought that the citizen/soldier would grasp the riflle above the mantle, and assemble with the needed implements of war. To insure a call to arms meant soldiers would arrive with their personal arms. When the constitution was formed, there was no national armory. good thing to…cause those Kentucky long rifles had twice the range and accuracy of the British “Brown Bess”. As this society becomes more militaristic…police powers extended to the degree they havel. it is more important then ever that the power of the state be given great pause. We are as well armed as the enforcement arm of government,,probably more so. While the police have tactical untits.. in the hundreds.. there are thousands of equally well trained citizens with enough firepower and skill to defeat all butf federalized troops en masse. I believe the state should always be aware of out right to resist tryanny…even though many of you are willing to succumb and submit. I will say this … I will and many other will, take erosion of our second amendment rights as an assault on our rights, if neccesarry, to overthrow a government of tyrannical dimension. I will go to the ramparts, I will fight with vigor any attempt to disarm us with all the force and resources we have. yes, that does include armed conflict and overthrow of an over reaching state authority. I will use deadly force to ensure the preservation of the most liberal interpretation of second amendment rights. Take my guns.. we are at war, You say we are the government? No knock warrants? Spy cameras? warrantless wire tapping? No…I am NOT that part of government. Shooting handicapped old men in crosswalks is not my government. Police in high speed, drunken road rage chases, in private vehicles, drawing weapons on private citizens with private “hideaway pistols is not my government…not now..not ever. I can still ding at 1500 yards…with teflon, armored piercing loads AND I don’t need a telescopic sight to do it..I can still do it with open iron sights….it is my assurance I am free. As you all surrender more and more and become more and more docile…all the more reason to stay up armored and have the best firepower available. The more control you cede to authority…the more I advocate expansion of the second amendment. No police authority should be better armed then a free people.

Share This

[kootchman]

Here is an excerpt from the Declaration of Independence….

That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

In short… the individual citizen is empowered to determine when governance becomes tryanny…and has the right to overthrow that government. I fins little room for argument in this Declaration.. if the police state has automatic assault wepaonry,,, we should. If they have armor vehicles, we should have anti-armor weaponry…. interesting isn’t it… we are in an arms race against our own police forces….

Share This

[kootchman]

A last word…. slavey was not the main issue…read and study the Missouri Compromise… slavery was allowed to continue.. even the Emancipation DID NOT free slaves… only those states in rebellion…a rather hollow gesture as the Proclaimation was made when the Federal government has no control over the states in rebellion.. Lincoln wanted to offer up slavery as a prize to any state or teitory who stayed out of the conflict…. it was hardly the moral high ground. You could have and keep your slaves as long as you stayed unaligned. History always gets its twist because the victors get to write it. I suggest you read the Emancipation Proclamation… you will be most surprised at how much “nothing: it did.

Quote: Despite this expansive wording, the Emancipation Proclamation was limited in many ways. It applied only to states that had seceded from the Union, leaving slavery untouched in the loyal border states. It also expressly exempted parts of the Confederacy that had already come under Northern control. Most important, the freedom it promised depended upon Union military victory.

Share This

[TDe]

Didn’t say the Civil War was about freeing slaves, said it was about slavery: The conversation, the proclamations, the economic stability of the South, whether or not states would allow or disallow slavery and yes, even the Missouri Compromise. All talking about slavery: the buying and selling of human beings as property.

Share This

[DBP]

kootchman: That was TMI (Too Much Information) as usual. But that’s ok. You responded in good faith, and that’s all I ask.

You list many specific instances of government abuse of power and there is no doubt that these things happen. But it also happens that most of the time the government ultimately gets taken to task for these outrages. Lawyers file civil suits, reporters do investigations, citizens go to protest marches. And then — lo and behold — government cleans up its act and life goes on.

These things are all part of the democratic process, kootchman. And it’s a process that works.

On the other hand, when was the last time you heard of the federal government changing its ways because it was confronted with a group of heavily armed “patriots” who didn’t agree with some law?

Try to keep your response to 5000 words or less, please. Thank you.

**************************************************************************************

We are as well armed as the enforcement arm of government, probably more so.

–Yeah, that’s precisely what worries me, dude. The Law ain’t always right, and it ain’t always pretty. But between the Law and the Kootchman Personal Freedom Society, I’m gonna have to go with the Law.

Share This

[dawsonct]

While the farright bleats incessantly about an imagined attack on their 2nd Amendment rights, they completely ignore the gutting of our 4th Amendment rights, which actually ARE under attack, and represents a much greater threat to our civil liberties.

Wake up, if you are bleating about losing our rights under the 2nd Amendment, while ignoring the REAL threat to our democracy and freedom, then you are being played for a dupe.

Share This

[Bostonman]

Well, I am going to side with Kootchmans Personal Freedom Society. I am not going to rely on the government to protect me and if the S hits the fan I will be able to protect myself. You can file all the lawsuits you want.

Share This

[dawsonct]

Maybe so BM, but you continue to miss the point: the 2nd Amendment isn’t REALLY in any danger. That is just another tactic to keep you cowed and scared and voting against your, and your Nation’s, best interests.

WAKE UP.

Share This

[Bostonman]

The minute that people who support the 2nd amendment put their guard down is when it will happen. Best to keep up the fight in my opinion. Even if the enemy isn’t the federal government the individual states keep trying to make their own laws.

I appreciate the wake up call though.

Share This

[dawsonct]

I thought you connedservatives where ALL ABOUT states rights. Obviously, as with every other issue, the hypocrisy never makes it through your mental fog.

Again, the FOURTH AMENDMENT is the one you REALLY need to worry about. There is NO weapon available to an American, probably even on the illegal market, that would allow them to defend ANYTHING against our military. You may be able to take out a few of your fellow citizens, but you won’t win any armed revolution and will simply end up a greasy spot on the ground.

Nice knowing you.

Share This

[DBP]

I get your logic, Boston. Thank you for clarifying that the government is not the enemy.

FWIW, during the GWB era, some of my friends on the Left were biting their nails over the possibility of a coup d’etat from the Right.

Calm down! I screamed . . .

==============================================================

I think I’ll always have a quibble with this notion of people (or their governments) deciding political issues with guns.

The basic problem is this: Once you’ve decided an issue by force, what’s to stop you deciding the next one that way? And the next one after that? –Especially when the shotguns are singing your song.*

Suppose kootch and company decide the feds are out to take their guns and, after a bloody shootout, they make a break for it and are all holed up in Alaska somewhere.

Can you imagine what life would be like in the Republic of Kootchman? Would there still be respect for the law? Would there even be any law?

Oh yeah. I know . . .

The law of the jungle.

==============================================================

*

We’ll be fighting in the streets

With our children at our feet

And the morals that they worship will be gone

And the men who spurred us on

Sit in judgment of all wrong

They decide and the shotgun sings their song

I’ll tip my hat to the new constitution

Take a bow for the new revolution

Smile and grin at the change all around

Pick up my guitar and play

Just like yesterday

Then I’ll get on my knees and pray

We don’t get fooled again

The change, it had to come

We knew it all along

We were liberated from the fold, that’s all

And the world looks just the same

And history ain’t changed

‘Cause the banners, they are flown in the next war

I’ll tip my hat to the new constitution

Take a bow for the new revolution

Smile and grin at the change all around

Pick up my guitar and play

Just like yesterday

Then I’ll get on my knees and pray

We don’t get fooled again

No, no!

I’ll move myself and my family aside

If we happen to be left half alive

I’ll get all my papers and smile at the sky

Though I know that the hypnotized never lie

Do ya?

There’s nothing in the streets

Looks any different to me

And the slogans are replaced, by-the-bye

And the parting on the left

Are now parting on the right

And the beards have all grown longer overnight

I’ll tip my hat to the new constitution

Take a bow for the new revolution

Smile and grin at the change all around

Pick up my guitar and play

Just like yesterday

Then I’ll get on my knees and pray

We don’t get fooled again

Don’t get fooled again

No, no!

Yeaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah!

Meet the new boss

Same as the old boss

“Won’t Get Fooled Again”

–The Who

Share This

[metrognome]

dawsonct — the problem with your argument is there is no guarantee whose side the actual soldiers will be on if the time comes. There have been all kinds of exposes on the number of soldiers who would probably not be on the side of the government and who belong to or have ties with extreme right wing militias. Remember Tim McVeigh?

And, if you think our armories are well-guarded, esp. against internal theft, I have some nice pasture land in Texas to sell you.

I agree the average citizen with typical weapons won’t last long, despite what Hollywood says, but those aren’t the folks I’m worried about.

Share This

[dawsonct]

The gist of my post is that the endangered 2nd Amendment is just another strategy by the corporatist farright to keep uncritical thinking people with overactive oblongata voting against there own best interest, and in favor of the corporatist take-over of America, which is facilitated by the VERY REAL destruction of our 4th Amendment rights.

—

And, as usual, that point is met with universal yawns.

Guess you don’t mind having someone looking over your shoulder?

Share This

[DBP]

I’m not yawning, dawson. But maybe we can actually build a coalition on this one. Why not?

If B-man, k-man and other 2nd Amendment buffs want to march with us to protect the WHOLE Constitution, I’ll welcome them.

Or maybe one week we could march for the 2nd (take the spurs off and leave yer guns at home, please), and the next week we could hit the streets for the 4th.

Personally, I agree with your implication that 4 > 2, but in the end, we’re all under the same tent, aren’t we? I mean . . . what is this Blog, after all, but one big Constitutional (1st Amendment) orgy?

[heavy breathing sounds]

Share This

[Author]

Posts