RE: MYTH: 2nd Amendment written to protect people AGAINST government tyranny

RE: MYTH: 2nd Amendment written to protect people AGAINST government tyranny (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

Nosathro -> RE: MYTH: 2nd Amendment written to protect people AGAINST government tyranny (5/14/2012 10:39:24 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: thompsonx quote: The Federalist Papers were written as arguments to favor acceptance of the proposed new Constitution. The amendment process acknowledges that the Constitution was not carved in stone and that times change. The ammendment process (bill of rights) was a prerequisite to the singing of the constitution by the anti-federalist. I think you have the date wrong...The Consitution was signed in 1897 the Bill of Right signed in 1791

Musicmystery -> RE: MYTH: 2nd Amendment written to protect people AGAINST government tyranny (5/14/2012 10:46:49 AM)
quote: read history much? Read the posts. When we get to history, we'll have a different discussion. This is about Madison's take.

Real0ne -> RE: MYTH: 2nd Amendment written to protect people AGAINST government tyranny (5/14/2012 10:47:58 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Musicmystery quote: the national gaurd is NOT the militia and was never intended to be so. the "real" Militia is no different then the old west posse with one exception that being they had a civilian commander recognized by the gubafia and are organized. True on the National Guard, bullshit on the old west. These were State militias. no you fail to recognize there is a difference between being created UNDER the state and recognized BY the state. modern commies and socialists have the idea that nothing can exist but by prescription of the state. they are wrong

Musicmystery -> RE: MYTH: 2nd Amendment written to protect people AGAINST government tyranny (5/14/2012 10:54:49 AM)
No, you fail to recognize the difference between being a state militia and a posse.

Nosathro -> RE: MYTH: 2nd Amendment written to protect people AGAINST government tyranny (5/14/2012 10:58:16 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Real0ne quote: ORIGINAL: Nosathro quote: ORIGINAL: Real0ne quote: ORIGINAL: Nosathro The Second Admendment was written over 200 years ago. Then many people live in rual area, miles from their nearst neighbor. At that time there was not a standing army to deal with many problems i.e. Indians (how dare they attack us, we took their land), so each community formed a militia. Simply put an alarmed went off and every adult male grabbed their musket and off they went. In order for all this to work everyone had to have a musket so the right to keep weapons was in created. However, does that apply, we have a police force, each state has a National Guard. As you pointed out George Washington, then President, imposed a whiskey tax to help pay for the revoluation. England was also on him for compsenation the US agreed to pay those still loyal to King George, and were forced to leave and return to England. This debt was never fully paid. Another note to the Whiskey rebillion, after the stills and such were destoried and all was said and done, George himself became the US number on maker of whiskey, also a few others of the founding fathers, but George and the others never paid the tax. George had some alternate motives when he made that speech about the 2nd Admentment. Since then "gun control" efforts have been used, even the famous fight at the OK Corral was started partly do to a "no guns in town" policy the Earps created. Also the Earps controled the gambling and vice in Tombstone. As to modern times, I have carred a firearm and owned a few. It was part of my job requirement. When my granddaughter came into my life, I decided to not have firearms and since then I have not owned a gun. I do believe owning a firearm is legal, under proper conditions, ie a need for training and such. However, I find no reason to own weapons such as automatice weapons. As to this "Stand your Ground Law", a 1995 Northeastern study of people using firearms in their self defense showed some 48% used a firearm against an unarmed person. this was before the "Stand your Ground Law" was in effect, I hate to see what it is now....welcome to Dodge City. we are still supposed to have a militia in each state to this very day. The militia was supposed to be controlled by civilians but they put it under the president creating an even larger standing army. we have a standing army in the US with numerous bases As I said, back then we had militias ..now each State has a National Guard, controled by Governor of that State. The President can and has done in the past Nationalized the National Guard, to server with the Regular Army. In the 70s under Carter, he created the "round off" brigade. Each regular Army Division was made up of 3 Brigades, the 2 regular the 3rd was the national guard. When I was serving we had over 3 Million standing, now I understand, only 1 million, regular, reservist and national guard, many bases have been closed, in California Fort Ord for one. the national gaurd is NOT the militia and was never intended to be so. I am referring to the militia of early time, read Section 8 of the Constitution. These were orginized by civilian and were governed by local authorities. the "real" Militia is no different then the old west posse with one exception that being they had a civilian commander recognized by the gubafia and are organized. Wrong again, Posse Comitatus Act of 1878 allowed for the Army, then it was mostly the Cavarly to be used by local officials to assit in law enforcement. The doctrine of Posse Comitatus permits law enforcement to recurit and or use anything needed to carry out law enforcement duties. These were not military organizations. As to the modern "so called" militia they have no offical standing. look at shaefer cox who is now being railroaded as a result of legislative "fiat" (the shit kings do) for exercizing a constitutional right.

Kirata -> RE: MYTH: 2nd Amendment written to protect people AGAINST government tyranny (5/14/2012 11:03:01 AM)
So, having just come from starting an argument based on a flawed literal interpretation of the Bible, as if that was sufficient to settle the matter, now you start one based on a single misattributed quote, as if Jefferson never spoke any other words but those. Our attachment to no nation upon earth should supplant our attachment to liberty. ~Thomas Jefferson Nor is it a conservative versus liberal issue... the individual rights interpretation of the Second Amendment has a curiously distinguished list of liberal admirers. Among them are Harvard law professor Laurence Tribe, a longtime friend and adviser to Barack Obama, whose influential legal textbook American Constitutional Law was revised back in 2000 to endorse the individual rights interpretation of the Second Amendment. The two previous editions, published in 1978 and 1988, respectively, had argued that the Second Amendment protected only a collective right, but subsequent legal scholarship prompted Tribe to change his mind... Other liberal supporters of the "radical" individual rights interpretation include Yale law professor Akhil Reed Amar, one of the most respected progressive legal historians at work today, who has argued that the Second Amendment secures a "core right to self-protection," and University of Texas law professor Sanford Levinson, whose pioneering 1989 Yale Law Journal article "The Embarrassing Second Amendment" argued that it was time for liberals to take the entire Bill of Rights seriously. Reference: Opposing Views If the right of self-defense means anything at all, it must necessarily include the right of the People individually and collectively to defend themselves against the depredations of an oppressive government. That an oppressive government may object to such actions, rule them illegal, and suppress them by force is merely a triviality. What oppressive government wouldn't? Nor is the issue going to be easily resolved... According to Locke's theory of the social contract, which was widely accepted by the Founders, political authority is limited by those natural moral rights that individuals reserve against the government... Locke's theory generates paradoxical conclusions concerning the government's authority over civil disobedients, that is, people who resist the government because they believe it is violating reserved moral rights. If the government lacks the authority to compel the civil disobedient to abide by its laws, the result is anarchism: The limits on governmental authority are whatever each individual says they are. If the government has this authority, the result is authoritarianism: The limits on governmental authority are whatever the government says they are. Both conclusions are unacceptable... To their critics, these rights are anarchistic. All they do is give individuals the power to frustrate the government's legitimate attempts to protect citizens against mutually-imposed risks of violence. To their supporters, these rights are a bulwark against authoritarianism. To deny citizens the power to resist the government is to accept that the only views about the limits of political authority that matter are the government's. These disagreements cannot be resolved, because both sides are right. Reference: Duke Law Journal Necessarily, therefore, neither side has the high ground here, and neither is right at the expense of the other. The situation is simply one in which, "the limits that are placed on these rights will always be arbitrary and ad hoc." K.

Yachtie -> RE: MYTH: 2nd Amendment written to protect people AGAINST government tyranny (5/14/2012 11:07:38 AM)
fr- If it's a myth that the 2nd was to protect against government tyranny, then what exactly is its purpose? "[S]hall not be infringed" is pretty strong language within the context of the Bill of Rights, and prior to the 14th only applicable to the federal government. Could it not be understood as meaning that the federal government shall not, at any time, be the only entity having arms? The 2nd removed the federal government from any regulation of firearms within the states. Militias are state, not federal. Could a state debar anyone, or even everyone, from owning a firearm? Sure (state constitution dependent). Think the People would go for that? Doubtful.

Real0ne -> RE: MYTH: 2nd Amendment written to protect people AGAINST government tyranny (5/14/2012 11:07:47 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Musicmystery quote: read history much? Read the posts. When we get to history, we'll have a different discussion. This is about Madison's take. again: quote: Document D: Patrick Henry’s speech at Virginia Ratification Convention – June 4, 1788 Mr. HENRY. Mr. Chairman, the public mind, as well as my own, is extremely uneasy at the proposed change of government. Give me leave to form one of the number of those who wish to be thoroughly acquainted with the reasons of this perilous and uneasy situation, and why we are brought hither to decide on this great national question. I consider myself as the servant of the people of this commonwealth, as a sentinel over their rights, liberty, and happiness. I represent their feelings when I say that they are exceedingly uneasy at being brought from that state of full security, which they enjoyed, to the present delusive appearance of things. A year ago, the minds of our citizens were at perfect repose. Before the meeting of the late federal Convention at Philadelphia, a general peace and a universal tranquillity prevailed in this country; but, since that period, they are exceedingly uneasy and disquieted. When I wished for an appointment to this Convention, my mind was extremely agitated for the situation of public affairs. I conceived the republic to be in extreme danger. If our situation be thus uneasy, whence has arisen this fearful jeopardy? It arises from this fatal system; it arises from a proposal to change our government — a proposal that goes to the utter annihilation of the most solemn engagements of the states — a proposal of establishing nine states into a confederacy, to the eventual exclusion of four states. It goes to the annihilation of those solemn treaties we have formed with foreign nations. … This proposal of altering our federal government is of a most alarming {22} nature! Make the best of this new government — say it is composed by any thing but inspiration — you ought to be extremely cautious, watchful, jealous of your liberty; for, instead of securing your rights, you may lose them forever. If a wrong step be now made, the republic may be lost forever. If this new government will not come up to the expectation of the people, and they shall be disappointed, their liberty will be lost, and tyranny must and will arise. I repeat it again, and I beg gentlemen to consider, that a wrong step, made now, will plunge us into misery, and our republic will be lost. …I have the highest veneration for those gentlemen; but, sir, give me leave to demand, What right had they to say, We, the people? My political curiosity, exclusive of my anxious solicitude for the public welfare, leads me to ask, Who authorized them to speak the language of, We, the people, instead of, We, the states? States are the characteristics and the soul of a confederation. If the states be not the agents of this compact, it must be one great, consolidated, national government, of the people of all the states. … The people gave them no power to use their name. That they exceeded their power is perfectly clear. http://www.constitution.org/rc/rat_va_03.htm of course that part the cute court decisions fail to address. quote the whole post, this is about Patrick Henrys take where he makes the same point I make. Show us the fucking paperwork! There is NEVER any paperwork authorizing the power when tyranny rears its ugly head. we have a trust indenture and contrat that the government controls! AGAIN proof you have never voted on ANY amendment! The legislature has EXCLUSIVE jurisdiction over taxation NOT YOU protest till your dick fall off! so tell us: Who authorized them to speak the language of, We, the people, instead of, We, the states? unless of course you think their authority was magically blinked into existence by barbra eden and history has no application here EXCEPT of course the history YOU want to talk about?

Musicmystery -> RE: MYTH: 2nd Amendment written to protect people AGAINST government tyranny (5/14/2012 11:09:21 AM)
However, to frame Madison's points as if citizen vs. Feds is grossly inaccurate. His points are about allowing citizens the means to defend their state against Federal ambition. And the same holds true for Jefferson. Clearly, they weren't assembling a government meant to later be dismantled. They were balancing the rights of the States against the requirements of a Union.

Real0ne -> RE: MYTH: 2nd Amendment written to protect people AGAINST government tyranny (5/14/2012 11:10:26 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Yachtie fr- If it's a myth that the 2nd was to protect against government tyranny, then what exactly is its purpose? "[S]hall not be infringed" is pretty strong language within the context of the Bill of Rights, and prior to the 14th only applicable to the federal government. Could it not be understood as meaning that the federal government shall not, at any time, be the only entity having arms? The 2nd removed the federal government from any regulation of firearms within the states. Militias are state, not federal. Could a state debar anyone, or even everyone, from owning a firearm? Sure (state constitution dependent). Think the People would go for that? Doubtful. I better clarify, if they could it would be the echo over the voice.

Musicmystery -> RE: MYTH: 2nd Amendment written to protect people AGAINST government tyranny (5/14/2012 11:13:30 AM)
quote: YOU want to talk about? That's it right there. You NEVER address an actual topic, but go off on rapid tangents. What about the right to grow vegetables? What about the right to own a dog? What about the legal rights to sunlight that falls on one's property? What about the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo? Or the Treaty of Versailles? What about the Mongolian Empire? What about the value of American ginseng against Chinese varieties? NO WHERE did you address those crucial points!!!! [8\|] THAT'S how you "debate." /bullshit conversation with you.

mnottertail -> RE: MYTH: 2nd Amendment written to protect people AGAINST government tyranny (5/14/2012 11:13:33 AM)
Nope. In fact, we just went over this. It is a constitutional right, not relegated to the several states.

Real0ne -> RE: MYTH: 2nd Amendment written to protect people AGAINST government tyranny (5/14/2012 11:13:50 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Musicmystery However, to frame Madison's points as if citizen vs. Feds is grossly inaccurate. His points are about allowing citizens the means to defend their state against Federal AND STATE ambition. And the same holds true for Jefferson. Clearly, they weren't assembling a government meant to later be dismantled. They were balancing the rights of the States against the requirements of a Union. Wouldnt want anything to come down like it did in 1215

Musicmystery -> RE: MYTH: 2nd Amendment written to protect people AGAINST government tyranny (5/14/2012 11:14:39 AM)
And THAT'S what Madison says--the United States are not Europe.

Real0ne -> RE: MYTH: 2nd Amendment written to protect people AGAINST government tyranny (5/14/2012 11:15:52 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mnottertail Nope. In fact, we just went over this. It is a constitutional right, not relegated to the several states. constitutions do not grant rights, they are contracts and express and or reserve rights of the partys not that the US has not broken every damned on of their contracts.

BamaD -> RE: MYTH: 2nd Amendment written to protect people AGAINST government tyranny (5/14/2012 11:18:09 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: vincentML quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD It is obvious that most of the people on this thread have two problems. One they have never read the Federalist papers in which Madison makes it crystle clear that protection from the government was indeed the primary purpose of the second admendment. Two fhe Civil War has no bearing on the intent of somthing written 70 years earlier. The thread is allegedly about original intent not about feasibility of a current revolt. You might want to check the history section of politicalchat.org battle of Athens (Tenn) The Federalist Papers were written as arguments to favor acceptance of the proposed new Constitution. The amendment process acknowledges that the Constitution was not carved in stone and that times change. The Civil War ~ the war of treason and sedition ~ had everything to do with the document of Union written 70 years earlier despite your facile dismissal of the greatest orgy of bloodshed in the Nation's history. Prior to that President Jackson put down the attempt of Nullification by South Carolina and President Washington put down the Whiskey Rebellion in Pennsylvania. The deeds of history speak louder than the papers it is written upon. Something that happened in 1861 could not affect the INTENT of something written in 1789 comprehension of this fact could not in any rational way be interepeted to mean that I was ignoring The War of Northern Agression merely that as it happened yet the founders clearly could not have taken it into account.

Yachtie -> RE: MYTH: 2nd Amendment written to protect people AGAINST government tyranny (5/14/2012 11:18:51 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata Necessarily, therefore, neither side has the high ground here, and neither is right at the expense of the other. Ill take exception on one basis - When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation. No political entity ever gives up power voluntarily. That fact places the People just above government; government existing not by right but assent of the People. The People have the high ground.

Real0ne -> RE: MYTH: 2nd Amendment written to protect people AGAINST government tyranny (5/14/2012 11:23:23 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Musicmystery And THAT'S what Madison says--the United States are not Europe. in lip service anyway. we still have 51 boundaries that illegitimately label themselves a sovereign and claim dominion OVER YOU! you really need to read more history and understand the roots of how these so called governments are set up. imagine the shock

Musicmystery -> RE: MYTH: 2nd Amendment written to protect people AGAINST government tyranny (5/14/2012 11:24:12 AM)
quote: they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation. And they did--against abuses from George III, particularly economic ones. Granting a tea monopoly was over the top. To pretend that this applies to the government they substituted is inherently irrational. This new government was designed to prevent the problems of 18th century European monarchies. The intent here is separating from a monarchy to form a new alliance of State governments under a Federal union and how to balance State and Federal powers--hence Madison's Federalist papers. It's not about how to plant rose bushes, or any other agenda-driven reinterpretation.

mnottertail -> RE: MYTH: 2nd Amendment written to protect people AGAINST government tyranny (5/14/2012 11:24:27 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Real0ne quote: ORIGINAL: mnottertail Nope. In fact, we just went over this. It is a constitutional right, not relegated to the several states. constitutions do not grant rights, they are contracts and express and or reserve rights of the partys not that the US has not broken every damned on of their contracts. I have not intimated, claimed outright or in any way allowed that the governments are rights granting institutions. but thanks for the kindergarden primer.

Page: << < prev 1 2 [3] 4 5 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875