Why was the 2nd Amendment written and added to the Constitution.

Why was the 2nd Amendment written and added to the Constitution. (Full Version)

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

Message

jlf1961 -> Why was the 2nd Amendment written and added to the Constitution. (1/3/2013 8:07:31 PM)
The reasoning was simple, to keep the government of the people in the hands of the people. a. A well regulated militia---The goal b. being necessary to the security of a free State,---The reason c. the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.---The means of accomplishing the goal. quote: "Whereas civil rulers, not having their duty to the people duly before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as military forces, which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the article in their right to keep and bear their private arms." Tench Coxe, one of the framers of the amendment. quote: "Congress may give us a select militia which will, in fact, be a standing army - or Congress, afraid of a general militia, may say there shall be no militia at all. When a select militia is formed, the people in general may be disarmed." -John Smilie Then of course there are the words of Mao, the political power comes from the right to own firearms. As long as the people maintain that right, the government is held in check. The original version of the 2nd amendment was as follows: The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well-armed and well-regulated militia being the best security of a free country; but no person religiously scrupulous of baring arms shall be compelled to render military service in person. Congress moved the individual rights to be secondary to the security of a free country, and of course dropped the religious exemption all together. What this means is that the security of the state is primary, the rights of the individual are secondary but not eliminated. In the modern United States, the National Guard can be nationalized over the objections of the state's governors by executive order, which President Bush used a few times to call up the national guard units of various states for duty in Afghanistan and Iraq. For this reason, under the Militia Act of 1903, many states established State Defense Forces, the members of which supply their own firearms, ammo and gear. While these forces are intended to support the National Guard, they are not subject to call by the federal government. Jon Roland made some points in his paper "The Constitutional Militia." quote: Essentially, a militiaman is any citizen in his capacity as a defender of the state. By "state" we do not mean "the government", but a community of citizens in possession of a territory. A citizen whose behavior makes him an enemy of the state is not a militiaman, because he cannot both defend the state and attack it at the same time. Furthermore, he may have official duties, such as serving in an executive, judicial, or legislative position, or as a member in the armed forces, which take precedence over general militia duties. Therefore, in the broadest sense, the Militia is all citizens who are not enemies of the state and who do not have official duties that take precedence over their militia duties. That may include officials when they are off-duty. If you defend yourself against a criminal attack, what you are really doing is not just defending yourself. You are calling up the militia, consisting of yourself, to defend a member of the community, also consisting of yourself, and thereby forming a militia of one. If you ask someone else to help you, you are calling up the militia consisting of the two of you. Although every citizen has the duty to defend the state, that duty extends only as far as he is able to carry it out. No one has the duty to do what is impossible for him. On the other hand, he has the duty to exercise his abilities to make them as great as he can. His duty does not begin when a situation arises that requires him to act. He also has a duty to prepare to respond to any reasonably foreseeable contingencies. Complete Article. All these thoughts on the Second Amendment implies that the state militia and those members of the citizenry are responsible for the defense of the state, and to fulfill this requirement, it stands to reason that they should be able to arm themselves with weapons comparable to, if not exact weapon model, those of the military. However, there have been restrictions placed on who can own firearms that have stood against the second amendment. The 1968 Gun Control Act became part of Title 18 of the U.S. Code (Criminal Code), and prohibited the selling of firearms to anyone suspected of being: under indictment or convicted of a felony a fugitive from justice a drug user a mental defective or having been in a mental institution unfit for any other reason Thus when the shooter in the Virginia Tech incident purchased his weapons that he used to commit the act, it was not breakdown of the system that allowed him to purchase weapons that under the law he was not legally allowed to own.

DaNewAgeViking -> RE: Why was the 2nd Amendment written and added to the Constitution. (1/3/2013 8:30:26 PM)
Gawd! This revisionism is repugnant! The reason a 'well regulated militia' was thought necessary to a free society in the beginning was: A: the United States was a shallow band along the Atlantic seaboard, and faced the very real risk of aggression by England or France or both, and: B: most of the interior faced the very real danger of Indian raids, and: C: the United States didn't trust the Army, which was kept a tiny cadre unable to meet our legitimate defense needs. What little military we did have then, both 'Federals' and state Guard, focussed on manning coastal defenses and a few fortified strongpoints in the interior. If trouble came up, the citizenry were expected to grab their muskets and deal with it themselves. This treasonous garbage about 'defending' ourselves from Washington is recent revisionist rot. [sm=banghead.gif]

jackod -> RE: Why was the 2nd Amendment written and added to the Constitution. (1/3/2013 8:30:45 PM)
fantastic writing,too bad too many sheeple,sincerely,jack

DaNewAgeViking -> RE: Why was the 2nd Amendment written and added to the Constitution. (1/3/2013 8:38:55 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: jackod fantastic writing,too bad too many sheeple,sincerely,jack Yeah. Sometimes I wonder if this country is capable of self-government, and sometimes my optimism wears off, and I take a more realistic view of things. Sigh. [sm=beatdeadhorse.gif]

jlf1961 -> RE: Why was the 2nd Amendment written and added to the Constitution. (1/3/2013 9:23:06 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DaNewAgeViking Gawd! This revisionism is repugnant! The reason a 'well regulated militia' was thought necessary to a free society in the beginning was: A: the United States was a shallow band along the Atlantic seaboard, and faced the very real risk of aggression by England or France or both, and: B: most of the interior faced the very real danger of Indian raids, and: C: the United States didn't trust the Army, which was kept a tiny cadre unable to meet our legitimate defense needs. What little military we did have then, both 'Federals' and state Guard, focussed on manning coastal defenses and a few fortified strongpoints in the interior. If trouble came up, the citizenry were expected to grab their muskets and deal with it themselves. This treasonous garbage about 'defending' ourselves from Washington is recent revisionist rot. [sm=banghead.gif] Hmm, then what did Jefferson mean by this? quote: "I do not know whether it is to yourself or Mr. Adams I am to give my thanks for the copy of the new constitution. I beg leave through you to place them where due. It will be yet three weeks before I shall receive them from America. There are very good articles in it: and very bad. I do not know which preponderate. What we have lately read in the history of Holland, in the chapter on the Stadtholder, would have sufficed to set me against a Chief magistrate eligible for a long duration, if I had ever been disposed towards one: and what we have always read of the elections of Polish kings should have forever excluded the idea of one continuable for life. Wonderful is the effect of impudent and persevering lying. The British ministry have so long hired their gazetteers to repeat and model into every form lies about our being in anarchy, that the world has at length believed them, the English nation has believed them, the ministers themselves have come to believe them, and what is more wonderful, we have believed them ourselves. Yet where does this anarchy exist? Where did it ever exist, except in the single instance of Massachusets? And can history produce an instance of a rebellion so honourably conducted? I say nothing of it's motives. They were founded in ignorance, not wickedness. God forbid we should ever be 20. years without such a rebellion.[1] The people can not be all, and always, well informed. The part which is wrong will be discontented in proportion to the importance of the facts they misconceive. If they remain quiet under such misconceptions it is a lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty. We have had 13. states independant 11. years. There has been one rebellion. That comes to one rebellion in a century and a half for each state. What country ever existed a century and a half without a rebellion? And what country can preserve it's liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is it's natural manure. Our Convention has been too much impressed by the insurrection of Massachusets: and in the spur of the moment they are setting up a kite to keep the hen yard in order. I hope in god this article will be rectified before the new constitution is accepted." - Thomas Jefferson to William Stephens Smith, Paris, 13 Nov. 1787

Edwynn -> RE: Why was the 2nd Amendment written and added to the Constitution. (1/3/2013 9:38:46 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: jlf1961 The reasoning was simple, to keep the government of the people in the hands of the people. a. A well regulated militia---The goal b. being necessary to the security of a free State,---The reason c. the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.---The means of accomplishing the goal. quote: There was no standing army in the new US, and certainly no modern version of a standing army anywhere in the West at the time. We owed over $70 million already in the aftermath of the Independence, huge money in that day. Militias, which were counted on in being able to call up people having their own arms to be raised at short notice, were the fiscally responsible replacement for an otherwise hugely wasteful standing army twiddling their thumbs waiting on the next conflict. "Whereas civil rulers, not having their duty to the people duly before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as military forces, which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the article in their right to keep and bear their private arms." Tench Coxe, one of the framers of the amendment. Fuck of a lot of good that did for the Western Pennsylvanians when Hamilton sent a 13,000 man MILITIA (thank goodness they had their guns at the ready; that saved Hamilton, the financiers, and the government a lot of money) headed by president Washington himself, to suppress the Whiskey Rebellion, huh? Notice how, already, the financial/industrial aristocrats politically controlled the government? In any case, the real intent of the second amendment is plain to see in this episode. It wasn't intended as provision for citizen defense against the government at all, quite the opposite in this case. quote: Then of course there are the words of Mao, the political power comes from the right to own firearms. As long as the people maintain that right, the government is held in check. Mao wasn't a bright guy. In any case he was obviously oblivious to US history concerning the Whiskey Rebellion, the police and Std. Oil and Carnegie private armies (corporate militias) and government ordered national guards (government militias, at behest of Rockefeller, Carnegie, et al.) murdering miners and workers, kids included. Our 'right to bear arms' really helped the citizens there, huh? Here's what people don't get; Walmart has engaged in an ongoing process of robbing US citizens of millions of jobs, depleting the country of manufacturing relevance, beating down prices paid and squeezing small and large companies alike for sake of every last drop of margin, for its own account, powerful enough to tell Coca Cola what sweetener to use, powerful enough to tell Disney what scenes to delete from the DVDs Walmart sells ... And all the 2nd amendment folks think about is the government invading their backyard. The financial industry just destroyed 8.5 million jobs, caused 4-5 million foreclosures, destroyed the retirement security of millions of senior citizens, put hundreds of thousands of companies out of business, shuttered over 8,000 schools, completely wrecked the finances of all states and local governments ... But all the 2nd amendment folks think about is having a gun in case the government comes into your back yard ... I think I see the problem we have in the country, here.

jlf1961 -> RE: Why was the 2nd Amendment written and added to the Constitution. (1/3/2013 9:50:04 PM)
One of the biggest reasons that people give for prepping for doomsday is a complete financial collapse of society. Walmart and the Banking Industry is taking us down that road fairly quickly in my opinion.

tazzygirl -> RE: Why was the 2nd Amendment written and added to the Constitution. (1/3/2013 9:54:38 PM)
What did he mean by this? "Nor is it conceived needful or safe that a standing army should be kept up in time of peace for [defense against invasion]." --Thomas Jefferson Or this... "There are instruments so dangerous to the rights of the nation and which place them so totally at the mercy of their governors that those governors, whether legislative or executive, should be restrained from keeping such instruments on foot but in well-defined cases. Such an instrument is a standing army." --Thomas Jefferson to David Humphreys, 1789. ME 7:323 Or this? "Standing armies [are] inconsistent with [a people's] freedom and subversive of their quiet." --Thomas Jefferson: Reply to Lord North's Proposition, 1775. Papers 1:231 Are we ready to give up our standing armies to keep your visiion of the 2nd Amendment? You cant pull one side of this argument without looking at all sides. The man clearly intended we not have an army subsidized forever by the government. "A well-disciplined militia, our best reliance in peace and for the first moments of war till regulars may relieve them, I deem [one of] the essential principles of our Government, and consequently [one of] those which ought to shape its administration." --Thomas Jefferson: 1st Inaugural, 1801. "A militia so organized that its effective portions can be called to any point in the Union, or volunteers instead of them to serve a sufficient time, are means which may always be ready yet never preying on our resources until actually called into use. They will maintain the public interests while a more permanent force shall be in course of preparation. But much will depend on the promptitude with which these means can be brought into activity. If war be forced upon us in spite of our long and vain appeals to the justice of nations, rapid and vigorous movements in its outset will go far toward securing us in its course and issue, and toward throwing its burdens on those who render necessary the resort from reason to force." --Thomas Jefferson: 6th Annual Message, 1806. ME 3:425 "We must train and classify the whole of our male citizens, and make military instruction a regular part of collegiate education. We can never be safe till this is done." --Thomas Jefferson to James Monroe, 1813. ME 13:261 "[One measure] which I pressed on Congress repeatedly at their meetings... was to class the militia according to the years of their birth, and make all those from twenty to twenty-five liable to be trained and called into service at a moment's warning. This would have given us a force of three hundred thousand young men, prepared by proper training for service in any part of the United States; while those who had passed through that period would remain at home, liable to be used in their own or adjacent States. [This] would have completed what I deemed necessary for the entire security of our country." --Thomas Jefferson to Thaddeus Kosciusko, 1810. ME 12:368 All of this... the militia... was in place of a standing army. Are you advocating the disbandment of a standing military?

jlf1961 -> RE: Why was the 2nd Amendment written and added to the Constitution. (1/3/2013 10:21:07 PM)
Actually, for his time, he was right. At that time in history, a standing military force had one purpose, to expand an empire. In fact history has shown that empires with large standing armies had to expand to support those armies, otherwise they weren't needed. The Swiss does not have a standing army, and havent had one for its entire history. Israel has a total military manpower of 3,511,190 with a standing army of 187,000. It has never been successfully invaded, even when outnumbered and against countries with better equipment. The United States has a standing military of 1,477,896 and total manpower of 145,212,012 when you add reserves and the national guard. We spend 58% of the total money spent on defense in the world. Now, since the end of the cold war, what has the United States used that military force for? I would suggest that it is time for the United States to downsize the military and put more personnel in active reserve and inactive reserve. Of course the hawks on this board will scream bloody murder against such a move. But as Isoroku Yamamoto said, "invading the United States would be foolish, there would be a rifle behind every blade of grass." The United States uses it's military as a way to force its political agenda on other countries. That is why we have become the target of terrorists and the reason many countries do not trust us.

jlf1961 -> RE: Why was the 2nd Amendment written and added to the Constitution. (1/3/2013 11:30:06 PM)
[image]https://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash4/293955_211141352355977_621247230_n.jpg[/image] [image]https://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-snc6/734812_211135312356581_508536532_n.jpg[/image]

Edwynn -> RE: Why was the 2nd Amendment written and added to the Constitution. (1/4/2013 1:07:19 AM)
There was one young woman I went out with years ago who kept her Smith and Wesson at her bedside, but on the side closest to the entrance to her room. You can't believe all the finagling and scenario playing it took me to convince her that it would be safer if she kept the gun on the side of the bed further away from the door. In the same era, another young woman I was attracted to told me that she kept a gun in her home, but when I asked if she kept one in the chamber with the safety on, or had the safety off but needing to advance a round, she looked perplexed and told me she didn't know. I didn't ask her out. There are tens of thousands of men too stupid to figure out how to defend their home with a simple 9 mm and two clips, who claim they need assault weapons and a Howitzer for the task. Heaven help us if our country ever gets to the state of relying on people such as these to save our country.

meatcleaver -> RE: Why was the 2nd Amendment written and added to the Constitution. (1/4/2013 1:53:06 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: jlf1961 The reasoning was simple, to keep the government of the people in the hands of the people. Why do you think the founding fathers only gave 10% of he population the vote? To keep the government in the hands of the people? No, they thought only white male property owners should have the right to vote. Though ironically, they didn't think tax should just stop at white male property owners, the faunding fathers were quite happy to levy taxes without representation. Even when it came to arms, there wasn't much difference between the new USA and Britain, the people were expected to make up the army in time of need to defend the country ie. the property of the white male citzenry who were allowed to vote. A little deconstruction and you will find the founding fathers were not so interested in the people as consolidating the power of their own class and listening to people like you, boy were they successful. I can't remember who said it but one of your compatriots said, the founding fathers spoke like angels and schemed like devils.

Edwynn -> RE: Why was the 2nd Amendment written and added to the Constitution. (1/4/2013 2:38:58 AM)
Sorry you missed it, but the whole Independence war was not solely for purpose of perpetuating British aristocracy apart from that country. Hamilton most assuredly wanted such a system, but to keep the spoils at home, all the more for the locals, and an aristocracy more developed than the crude monopolies of the British East India Company et al. Jefferson and Madison recognised this from the outset, and at least partially succeeded against the effort. In the colonial days, South Carolina had banned the slave trade and Virginia had attempted to do the same, but the British government having given special protection to The Royal African Company, the colonies' efforts were ultimately futile. (Sort of like when Georgia had enacted anti-predatory lending laws in this century, and NJ attempted the same, until Standard & Poors told them to retract the laws, or else.) Pontification and breast swelling diatribes against slavery aside, the British slave traders and Britain's and Europe's insatiable desire for cheap cotton spelled doom for the unwilling slaves. Nike is the new Britain. Walmart is the new US, to make your point. Standard and Poors, and a host of other corporations tell our government what they can or what they can't do. All the CNN and Fox news politics crap is just the heighth of silliness. Just for the advert-selling 'drama!' value, nothing more. Always Lowest Prices has replaced and effectively displaced all those quaint "We The People" notions of another time.

DomKen -> RE: Why was the 2nd Amendment written and added to the Constitution. (1/4/2013 2:55:03 AM)
FR The authors of the Constitution and the man who led the nation at its birth did not view the second as some sort of protection against the government. One of the major actions by President Washington during his time in office was putting down the Whiskey Rebellion which is exactly the sort of thing you claim the 2nd was meant to prevent.

Edwynn -> RE: Why was the 2nd Amendment written and added to the Constitution. (1/4/2013 2:59:32 AM)
Which was pointed out and laid out in greater detail in an earlier post. Thanks for your attention.

meatcleaver -> RE: Why was the 2nd Amendment written and added to the Constitution. (1/4/2013 3:05:00 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Edwynn Sorry you missed it, but the whole Independence war was not solely for purpose of perpetuating British aristocracy apart from that country. Hamilton most assuredly wanted such a system, but to keep the spoils at home, all the more for the locals, and an aristocracy more developed than the crude monopolies of the British East India Company et al. Jefferson and Madison recognised this from the outset, and at least partially succeeded against the effort. In the colonial days, South Carolina had banned the slave trade and Virginia had attempted to do the same, but the British government having given special protection to The Royal African Company, the colonies' efforts were ultimately futile. (Sort of like when Georgia had enacted anti-predatory lending laws in this century, and NJ attempted the same, until Standard & Poors told them to retract the laws, or else.) Pontification and breast swelling diatribes against slavery aside, the British slave traders and Britain's and Europe's insatiable desire for cheap cotton spelled doom for the unwilling slaves. Nike is the new Britain. Walmart is the new US, to make your point. Standard and Poors, and a host of other corporations tell our government what they can or what they can't do. All the CNN and Fox news politics crap is just the heighth of silliness. Just for the advert-selling 'drama!' value, nothing more. Always Lowest Prices has replaced and effectively displaced all those quaint "We The People" notions of another time. And your point is? Basically all I said was the founding fathers wanted to consolidate their power in the colonies which they did. The idea they cared anymore for the freedom of ordinary colonist any more than the british did doesn't stand up to a modicum of scrutiny.

joether -> RE: Why was the 2nd Amendment written and added to the Constitution. (1/4/2013 3:29:30 AM)
There are several concepts of the 2nd that I find curious.... A) The group that brought the topic to be added to the Bill of Rights was the Deleware Delagation. B) Each sub-part of each amendment had to work with the whole of the amendment. Meaning, just like the Holy Bible, taking a verse out of context from the rest of the chapter could be perverted/changed to mean what ever someone wished it to mean (including the exact opposite). "...The Right to Bear Arms..." when taken out of context of the rest of the amendments three other sub-parts, means I can own any kind of arm I want, without restrictions. And that, "....Shall Not be Infringed." when taken out of context, means no one can place limits on my owning full automatic weapons. But the reality is that both those sub-parts have to be kept within the frame work of the whole amendment. And both explain information not commonly admitted by pro-gun types: B1) "A well regulated militia..." was one that had rules, regulations, and chain of command. It was set up to encourage location villages, towns and citiies to form citizen-armies that could act in a specific manner. There were a number of different rules with some similariaties and differences between the individual thirteen states. I believe for my state, the rules were, "Any man 18-74 years of age in good shape, with arm of choice (shotgun, rifle or musket), 47 rounds of ammunition, and one days food/water, shall be ready on a moment's notice". B2) "...being necessary to the security of a free state..." was the goal of said militia. That domestically, they could be called up to handle anything from a forest fire threatening a village to dealing with highwayman or indians. Foreign policy was they and other militias from surrounding towns could be called up to defend against a threat beyound the state borders; like indians or foreign nations. B3) "...the right of the people to keep and bear arms..." does not mean an unlimited right to firearms for any use or purpose. To have an arm was strictly for one's duties as a good standing member of their militia....PERIOD. This arm was not used for hunting, target shooting, sports, or self-defense. It was used per the regulations and rules of the militia. Some militia did allow the arm in question to be used in a self-defense or hunting purpose as well. Likewise, most people back than only had one firearm, so the issue of "What if they had seven different guns, are they all protected under the 2nd?", never came up much. If someone states their arm is protected under the 2nd, than it would be fair to say they are a part of a standing, well regulated militia. And it would be a simple process of checking the militia's records if said person has said arm for use with their duties as part of the militia, or not. Those arms not protected under the 2nd? Well, those would fall under state laws. The reason they didnt place their arms in arsenals or armouries and instead their own houses was more of wisdom than 'fear of the tyrannical goverment'. If said building was destroyed in a surprise attack, the town would be at the mercy of their attackers. With arms of the militia in individual control, it would be harder (hopefully) for the enemy to destroy a town's defenses. B4) "...shall not be infringed." Unlike many pro-gun types, this had nothing to do with laws being created to keep specific arms, equipment or such from paying customers that say its their constitutional right. Back than, their fear was only a goverment could be tyrannical. In 2013, we know the wealthy, corporations, religious organizations, and the goverment can all behave in tyrannical ways. As such, if the Governor could call up a militia and order it to attack indians, or help another state with trouble, could he also order them to lay their arms down, as a pre-emptive move to create a tyrannical goverment? The answer was 'No'. The only way such arms could be surrendered in posession of the militia, was by the locals voting on the issue. So if the American people voted to 'lay down the arms' in the country, an was successful, you the gun owner would be surrendering your guns, or be in violation of the constitution! Try to imagine THAT Supreme Court battle (not to meantion the decision).... C) The National Rifle Association originally was in favor of good gun control measures, as they didnt like the idea of non-responsible types aquiring firearms to be used against the community. Than in the 1970's a coup took place, and the organization flipped 180 degrees. After that, they were the puppets of the gun industry, doing anything and everything to undermine reasonable laws that could keep the citizens of the community safe from irresponsible persons. Might explain why even after two classrooms full of 1st graders being mowed down by some lunatic with a semi-automatic rifle, the NRA, STILL wants to put MORE guns into schools. Cus that hasnt helped inner city schools for decades now.... D) One's firearm will only protect them in 1% of situtations that could arise (there are many, hundreds of thousands of situations). How does that gun protect your life from a heart attack? Or identity theives? Or a bad chemical spill that hits your house before information by civil defense/police do? If the reason to have a firearm is to protect against someone that would do you harm; than why are you NOT wearing a NBC suit 24/7 during flu season? The flu this year has the potential to do deep harm to many scores of Americans. The NBC sui is a 'Nuclear, Biological, and Chemical' warfare suit. There is reasonable rational to owning a firearm for self defense, and the "in need of therapist immediately' reason for having one. The 2nd amendment means something totally different than what groups and organizations have tried to push for decades. What does the gun industry have to gain by misinforming and out right lying to the American people? The same as the tobacco industry did for a number of decades. Profit! I'm not saying you or I can not have a firearm. That would be determined by our individual state's goverment. By saying you have a 2nd amendment right, implies I can ask the question "Whose your commanding officer?" Since ALL militias back then had commanding officers. One would be able to answer that without a moment's thought. Today, most will stare at you without a clue what your talking about. The Supreme Court has come in recent years to give 'ideas' on how they might understand the 2nd amendment. Of course, this is the same court that states corporations are people too. Are corporations really people like you and me?

meatcleaver -> RE: Why was the 2nd Amendment written and added to the Constitution. (1/4/2013 4:41:44 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: joether Today, most will stare at you without a clue what your talking about. The Supreme Court has come in recent years to give 'ideas' on how they might understand the 2nd amendment. Of course, this is the same court that states corporations are people too. Are corporations really people like you and me? That is a profoundly political decision and frightening coming from a court and one would expect only a legislature could decide. We've been having problems with courts making profoundly political decisins on this side of the world too, its dangerous and undemocratic.

jlf1961 -> RE: Why was the 2nd Amendment written and added to the Constitution. (1/4/2013 5:43:42 AM)
The basis for the op was founded on a google search for "Why was the second amendment written." I know all about the whiskey rebellion, I am a history major. The second amendment has little to do with history and a lot to do with politics. In my opinion, Thomas Jefferson and others had a problem with a large standing army, which seems to stem from the practice of England at the time prior to the revolution to enforce what the colonists saw as unfair laws. As I said in an earlier post, the only reason, according to history, to keep a large standing army was basically to expand the territory of a particular state. The empire building throughout history seems to support this argument. There are 70 to 80 million private gun owners in the United States. Today, large standing armies are primarily used as tools of enforcing diplomatic goals of the state, not as a means of defense. Since WW2, there have been few wars of expansion, the primary exception being in the area of the Persian Gulf, and the "ideological" wars in Korea and Vietnam. Instead there have been a number of civil wars where the US and Soviet Union supplied various sides to project the political philosophies of the super powers. Since the revolution, the United States has been invaded twice, once during the war of 1812, and the second time when the Japanese invaded two of the Aleutian Islands of Alaska. Since the end of WW2 and the dawn of the nuclear age, the United States had an effective deterrent to invasion, a nuclear arsenal. Since the end of the Cold War, the United States has involved itself in three wars, The first gulf war, Afghanistan and Iraq. Forgetting the first Gulf War, and focusing on Afghanistan and Iraq, one could have been dealt with more effectively with surgical strikes against terrorist training camps rather than a full scale invasion and Iraq was invaded based on lies and half truths, and therefore was totally unnecessary. So, I have to ask, why does the United States need a large standing military, if not to project its agenda on the world stage? If this country were to be invaded by a foreign power, the United States would not hesitate to launch a nuclear strike at the heart of the invading country. It would save the United States billions to keep a smaller standing military and maintain reserve forces, national guards and state defense forces instead. Those state defense forces would be made up of private citizens that supply their own equipment and weapons, and it would be prudent if those weapons were of similar type and caliber as issued to the standing military and federal reserve forces.

tazzygirl -> RE: Why was the 2nd Amendment written and added to the Constitution. (1/4/2013 7:16:39 AM)
The military, in Jefferson's time, was to run two years before needing congressional approval again. The military also did not provide arms. Do you see the problem with pulling up the past to excuse the present?

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

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

5.078125E-02