An aspect of the 2nd Amendment I cannot understand (Congress, illegal, heroin)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
We all know the 2nd Amendment was the founders best defense against tyranny, it was specifically to ensure citizens always had the ability to defend themselves from the Govt...
Here is where it starts getting confusing...if firearms are to be used as self defense from the Govt...that obviously means the founders thought it was acceptable to draw/ or use firearms against the Govt...but if that happened today, the person would probably be labelled a domestic terrorist and/or definitely arrested and thrown in jail.
Technically, Would not the definition of 'exercising ones 2nd Amendment rights' be...the act of drawing firearms, in self defense from the Govt?
Im also unclear when the founders thought such self defense was necessary/appropriate? Basically, WHO determines if someone is protecting themselves from the Govt or not, or just intending to harm someone? Surely there is a way to differentiate? Are there some case examples of people drawing or using firearms against the Govt and it was justified?
From so many of these gun threads on CD, Im seeing that most people believe the 2nd Amendment is mainly for self defense from (other citizens/criminals)...Im not sure how they read the amendment and jumped to that conclusion.
They were fresh off from having to take up arms against the British government. It all sounds nice in theory but it all comes down to whether you have the might to pull it off. If you take up arms against the government and the government wins, you are a terrorist. If you win, you are a freedom fighter.
They were fresh off from having to take up arms against the British government. It all sounds nice in theory but it all comes down to whether you have the might to pull it off. If you take up arms against the government and the government wins, you are a terrorist. If you win, you are a freedom fighter.
If such a thing happened today, the people would triumph in a heartbeat! (the govt/military is powerful, but the people have the NUMBERS)
It was about the events of the immediate past and about fighting Indians, whose lands they were busy appropriating. I’ve read recently that this was also about the ability to coerce Southern slaves.
Early in our history we had the Whiskey Rebellion which was put down forcefully by the feds. I doubt that your interpretation of why our Constitution has a 2nd Amendment is exactly right. It was driven by what was going on at the time, and what had happened within recent memory.
The question of secession, if that is what you are driving at, was settled by the outcome of the Civil War. And, loose talk by unhappy white guys about civil war is stupid. You really, really don’t want civil rebellion. Look around the world where countries are being torn apart. There is terrible loss of innocent life, and needless suffering when that happens.
And, most Americans would not rise up in rebellion, if called to do so by extremists. They just would not.
If such a thing happened today, the people would triumph in a heartbeat! (the govt/military is powerful, but the people have the NUMBERS)
In that case, the answer to your question comes down to how many people consider using force against the government to be justified. If it's not enough to defeat the government then they are traiterous criminals and terrorists. If it is enough then they are valiant freedom fighters saving the nation.
They were fresh off from having to take up arms against the British government. It all sounds nice in theory but it all comes down to whether you have the might to pull it off. If you take up arms against the government and the government wins, you are a terrorist. If you win, you are a freedom fighter.
Something like that.
Consider Abu Ghraib prison. I have been asked by the Captain I did police work under what would I have done.
I would have refused to obey those orders or I would have incompetently obeyed them and if I was lucky, I would just have been relieved, dismissed from the service, and kissed 20 year retirement good bye. No would hail me as a heroine for such a decision. But I know to take the easy way and obey that it would be found out (it always is in our world) and my name would be a footnote as a war criminal.
Hence, two things. One, life has some harsh decisions to be made. Two, remember that you are not going to live forever, eventually you will die.......anyhow.
According to the Supreme Court, the phrase "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed" can stand alone. It is not limited by the first part, "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State". While this might reveal an initial purpose, it doesn't relegate gun ownership to only the purposes of serving in a militia. It can also be for self-defense, so saying it was "specifically to defend yourself against a government" isn't exactly accurate.
Several early state constitutions listed the right to bear arms as a right for its citizens, including for self-defense. These states were then admitted to the Union. Congress didn't say that these states had to limit gun ownership only to service in the militia if they were to join the United States.
One example is Pennsylvania, who's state constitution reads "that the people have a right to bear arms for the defense of themselves and the state." This was ratified in September 1776. Pennsylvania then ratified the U.S. Constitution in December of 1787. If there was a conflict, surely it would have been addressed at that time.
"The Amendment's prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause's text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms.
The Second Amendment's drafting history, while of dubious interpretive worth, reveals three state Second Amendment proposals that unequivocally referred to an individual right to bear arms.
Interpretation of the Second Amendment by scholars, courts and legislators, from immediately after its ratification through the late 19th century also supports the Court's conclusion." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second...s_Constitution
According to the Supreme Court, the phrase "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed" can stand alone. It is not limited by the first part, "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State". While this might reveal an initial purpose, it doesn't relegate gun ownership to only the purposes of serving in a militia. It can also be for self-defense, so saying it was "specifically to defend yourself against a government" isn't exactly accurate.
Several early state constitutions listed the right to bear arms as a right for its citizens and included the phrase for self-defense, along with service in a militia. These states were then admitted to the Union. Congress didn't say that these states had to limit gun ownership only to service in the militia if they were to join the United States.
One example is Pennsylvania, who's state constitution reads "that the people have a right to bear arms for the defense of themselves and the state." This was ratified in September 1776. Pennsylvania then ratified the U.S. Constitution in December of 1787. If there was a conflict, surely it would have been addressed at that time.
"The Amendment's prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause's text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms.
The Second Amendment's drafting history, while of dubious interpretive worth, reveals three state Second Amendment proposals that unequivocally referred to an individual right to bear arms.
Interpretation of the Second Amendment by scholars, courts and legislators, from immediately after its ratification through the late 19th century also supports the Court's conclusion." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second...s_Constitution
Quote:
"The right of the individual citizen to bear arms in defense of himself or the state shall not be impaired, but nothing in this section shall be construed as authorizing individuals or corporations to organize, maintain or employ an armed body of men."---Excerpt from the Constitution from the State of Arizona. Section 26. Bearing Arms.
In Arizona I don't think that they could be any more specific than that? So much for the militia clause, it's not needed as we already have the right to defend ourselves as individuals and our state.
We all know the 2nd Amendment was the founders best defense against tyranny, it was specifically to ensure citizens always had the ability to defend themselves from the Govt...
Here is where it starts getting confusing...if firearms are to be used as self defense from the Govt...that obviously means the founders thought it was acceptable to draw/ or use firearms against the Govt...but if that happened today, the person would probably be labelled a domestic terrorist and/or definitely arrested and thrown in jail.
Technically, Would not the definition of 'exercising ones 2nd Amendment rights' be...the act of drawing firearms, in self defense from the Govt?
Im also unclear when the founders thought such self defense was necessary/appropriate? Basically, WHO determines if someone is protecting themselves from the Govt or not, or just intending to harm someone? Surely there is a way to differentiate? Are there some case examples of people drawing or using firearms against the Govt and it was justified?
From so many of these gun threads on CD, Im seeing that most people believe the 2nd Amendment is mainly for self defense from (other citizens/criminals)...Im not sure how they read the amendment and jumped to that conclusion.
NO NO NO. People still don't understand the constitution - it's not a document that says what people can or cannot do with firearms, that's not it's purpose. But it discusses what governments cannot do. Simply enough - "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed" by the government (we can safely ignore that part about militia as that, based on the writing style of the day, was a separate statement).
But it's not meant to be an unregulated right, it's not unlimited in spite of the term "infringed". Other laws outside of the constitution then govern peoples legal usage of firearms. This was affirmed by the Supreme Court/Heller interpretation of the 2nd amendment. Passing laws that say it's illegal to draw a weapon on a police officer does not "infringe" on the 2nd amendment, obviously.
Simple as that.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
