My take on the 2nd Amendment

[BCDWYO]

The thing that so many of the apathetic masses don't seem to understand is why we have a 2A. It is NOT about sporting arms, collectors, or any other "civilized" use of firearms. It is about the PEOPLE'S right to protect themselves from tyranny, oppression, or maybe more to the point in today's society, terrorism or gang crime. As much as I love my six-shooters, they are NOT the most effective for this means. To have meaningful protection against the tyranny or terrorism, the PEOPLE must be armed as well as those who may harm them, and this means effective, military-style weapons. Oppressive governments, terrorists, and or others who would do the people harm will not be using six-shooters, over-under shotguns, or other quaint and "friendly" comfortable weapons. Wayne said it when he said the only way to stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun. I would take it further and say the only way to protect against bad guys with AKs is good guys with ARs (and mags with plenty of bullets). Do I NEED my "assault rifle" today? No I do not. But I may NEED it some day!
Oh yeah, and Merry Christmas!!

JOIN and SUPPORT the NRA

 

[M29since14]

Very true and well said. Nothing much has changed since to cause the 2nd Amendment to become outmoded. For some reason people - many of them otherwise good people - want to overlook the obvious.

 

[CoMF]

If the 2nd Amendment is "antiquated" and "outmoded," does that mean that the 1st Amendment only applies to quill and parchment, movable type and the spoken word?

The Founding Fathers hadn't envisioned a modern society like ours, but they did espouse the core principles of a limited government which are just as much pertinent today as they were in the 18th Century.

 

[Joewisc]

Not to mention "a well-regulated militia." If the First Amendment has limits -- and who can argue that it doesn't? -- then shouldn't the 2nd Amendment have reasonable limits as well?

 

[CoMF]

Not to mention "a well-regulated militia." If the First Amendment has limits -- and who can argue that it doesn't? -- then shouldn't the 2nd Amendment have reasonable limits as well?

Considering that "regulated" within the context of 18th Century English means "disciplined," I would have to agree that we should be just as judicious in our exercize of free speech as we are in exercizing all of our civil rights.

 

[tyusclan]

Not to mention "a well-regulated militia." If the First Amendment has limits -- and who can argue that it doesn't? -- then shouldn't the 2nd Amendment have reasonable limits as well?

We do have limits. I think laws against armed robbery, assault, murder, etc., cover it quite well.

Any 'limits' should be targeted towards the misuse of the guns, not the guns themselves nor those of us who use them legally.

 

[GBertolet]

Amen, The second amendment was put there to protect us from the possibility of a future government tyranny. Not hunting, self defense, sport shooting, etc. Our founders came from countries, namely England, where the lower classes were exploited, and denied ownership, of any weapons as a means to resist. In the effort to keep them down and subservient, that was the law. Our founders, well aware of what could happen here, having experienced it themselves, put that safeguard in the constitution, second only to freedom of religion and speech. It is there to force a future government to honor the other nine amendments. With a strong undiluted second amendment, and a well armed civilian population (milita), government adventurism into tyranny is less likely. There is a difference between being a subject or a citizen.

 

[BCDWYO]

Not to mention "a well-regulated militia." If the First Amendment has limits -- and who can argue that it doesn't? -- then shouldn't the 2nd Amendment have reasonable limits as well?

I just get very uncomfortable with the slippery slope that results when the government starts setting said limits...and I don't trust the "reasonableness" of those deciding what might be reasonable!

 

[italyguy01]

Do you want answers.. See Agenda 21.

Gun Control and removing the 2nd amendment is only the beginning...

 

[edprof]

My Second Amendment rights are every bit as precious to me as a journalist's First Amendment rights. Our courts should be just a vigilant about governmental attempts to dispense, regulate, or meter our rights under the Second Amendment as they have been about defending peoples' right to say what they want to, assemble when the want to, and worship where, when, and how they want to.

 

[edprof]

You're right, our Second Amendment rights are far more than a statement about some privileged class getting to keep their "toys." Our Second Amendment is about freedom. A totally disarmed population would be much more vulnerable to governmental over-reaches and other abuses.

 

[PERAZZI]

the 2nd amendment's sole purpose is to protect the 1st amendment.
one does not exist without the other..

 

[italyguy01]

"When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty." Thomas Jefferson

 

[NFrameFred]

There are those that maintain in the accepted language of the day, "well regulated" means something totally different that what the left would love it to mean today; to this day a gunsmith 'regulates' a fixed barrel with fixed sights so it fires to point of aim. "A well regulated militia" could indeed be inferred to be a group of citizen soldiers well practiced, disciplined and sighted in with their weapons.

 

[The Big D]

Untrue

Your interpretation of the purpose of the 2nd Amendment is not factually based. Rather, the Constitution (Article I) allows armed citizens in militias to "suppress Insurrections"...not cause them. Further, the Constitution defines treason as "levying War" against the government in Article III.

Though, increasingly, some cite your statements as fact, they are not.

Be safe.

Note: My post is adapted from the comments of Robert J. Spitzer, Chairman of the Political Science Department at SUNY/Cortland and as published in the Washington Post. The quotes are exactly as originally written by Mr. Spitzer.

Amen, The second amendment was put there to protect us from the possibility of a future government tyranny. Not hunting, self defense, sport shooting, etc. Our founders came from countries, namely England, where the lower classes were exploited, and denied ownership, of any weapons as a means to resist. In the effort to keep them down and subservient, that was the law. Our founders, well aware of what could happen here, having experienced it themselves, put that safeguard in the constitution, second only to freedom of religion and speech. It is there to force a future government to honor the other nine amendments. With a strong undiluted second amendment, and a well armed civilian population (milita), government adventurism into tyranny is less likely. There is a difference between being a subject or a citizen.

 

[Stophel]

The entire Bill of Rights was demanded by those who OPPOSED the Constitution, as a hedge AGAINST the Constitution. It worked ok, for a while. One of the more egregious problems with the Constitution is that it takes total control of the militias and puts them into the hands of the central government. Leaving the States and the People defenseless. The Second Amendment was written to alleviate that problem.

 

[Pointshoot]

The entire Bill of Rights was demanded by those who OPPOSED the Constitution, as a hedge AGAINST the Constitution. It worked ok, for a while. One of the more egregious problems with the Constitution is that it takes total control of the militias and puts them into the hands of the central government. Leaving the States and the People defenseless. The Second Amendment was written to alleviate that problem.

Youre quite right. In actuality, Hamiliton and others like him, had no authority to broaden the power and scope of the central government and usurp the Articles of Confederation. They used a cover story that their motives were more limited. They were representing moneyed and large landholder interests and sought to unite those interests with those in a more powerful central government. Hamilton stated as much.

The Anti-Federalists demanded that the Bill of Rights be the first amendments to the Constitution in order to guarantee individual citizens rights.