Results 1 to 17 of 17

Thread: So what's the 2nd amendment about anyway?

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Greensboro, ,
    Posts
    172

    Post imported post

    "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."

    A lot of arguments are made about the right to bear arms; from hunting advocates to the person wanting to protect their family from an intruder.

    Nevertheless, what was the intent the founders had for protecting (not granting) the right of the people to keep and bear arms? Was it to be able to hunt/stop a home invasion or was it to protect ourselves from a tyrannical government?

    If it's the later, what's a "common sense regulation"?

    How would people protect themselves from an oppressive government if there are regulations that say "we can be armed wherever we go but you can only carry where we permit (give permission/privilege; oposite of a right)."

    How would people protect themselves from an oppressive government if there are regulations that say "we have no limits on the firepower we can have but you can only use the type of weapons we permit (i.e. government=full-auto; the people=semi-auto)."

    Thoughts...

  2. #2
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766

    Post imported post

    jp49911 wrote:
    SNIP Thoughts...
    All covered at length in various 2A essays and so forth over the years. Just read for a bit. I recommend starting with the "intellectuals" of the 2A world--the top tier boggers and writers like Alan Korwin, Stephen Halbrook,David Kopel, Clayton Cramer, Dave Hardy, et al.

    But, don't let that get in the way of a lively discussion here.
    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

  3. #3
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766

    Post imported post

    jp49911 wrote:
    SNIP Nevertheless, what was the intent the founders had for protecting (not granting) the right of the people to keep and bear arms? Was it to be able to hunt/stop a home invasion or was it to protect ourselves from a tyrannical government?
    I'll chip in one thought that seems to get overlooked, especially by the anti-gunners.

    An armed militia is just an extension of the basic human right to self-defense. Militia is just collective self-defense--people organizing to increase their possibility of asuccessful defense.A member of a community could individually wait onhis door step for the invader or tyrant troops to arrive and fight their whole regiment himself, this scenario repeated as the invader or tyrant troops moved through the community taking down one individual at a time. Or, the individuals could organize and fight collectively obtaining thereby a greater chance of success.

    One cannot possibly say that individuals should be disarmed, and also saythat it is proper for police or military to have arms. If individuals are of so little worth as to disallow them the means to self-defense, then those same individuals cannot collectively be worth defending, whether by police, military, or militia. Basically you would just have a whole lot of worthless individuals. They would not become more worth defending just because there were more of them.

    So, militia is just an extension of individual self-defense. As are police, supposedly. You'll see many arguments that omit the crucial connection.
    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    49

    Post imported post

    The purpose of the second amendment was very simple. If this new government they had created somehow in the future grew into an abomination of what it was meant to be the people (citizens) would have recourse to correct it one way or another.


    ‘‘War clouds were gathering rapidly. The sending of more than 3,000 British army regulars under Maj. Gen. Thomas Gage to Boston further exacerbated the imperial rift. When a column of these troops under Lt. Col. Francis Smith moved into the countryside to collect arms and munitions gathered by the patriot militia, hostilities erupted at Lexington and Concord on Apr. 19, 1775.’’

    Lexicon Universal Encyclopedia



    ‘‘Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are inevitably ruined’’

    — Patrick Henry
    ‘‘I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials.’’
    ‘‘To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them.’’
    — George Mason

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    , , Kernersville NC
    Posts
    783

    Post imported post

    These people in office now is the very reason we have the 2A. Why do you think they hate it so much, then there are the un informed or naive who think its a hunting right. These jackasses in there now would love for everyone to believe that one.

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Portsmouth, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    463

    Post imported post

    There were literally volumes written by the Founding Fathers onEXACTLY what they meant by the2A. It's pretty easy to findusing any Internet search engine. A very good article on the framers intentions can be found at: http://www.lectlaw.com/files/gun01.htm

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Greensboro, ,
    Posts
    172

    Post imported post

    jp49911 wrote:
    "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."

    ...what's a "common sense regulation
    "?

    How would people protect themselves from an oppressive government if there are regulations that say "we can be armed wherever we go but you can only carry where we permit (give permission/privilege; oposite of a right)."

    How would people protect themselves from an oppressive government if there are regulations that say "we have no limits on the firepower we can have but you can only use the type of weapons we permit (i.e. government=full-auto; the people=semi-auto)."

    Thoughts...
    Thanks for the replies but I was hoping for more thoughts on what's a "common sense regulation?"

    The question of what the second amendment is really about was almost rhetorical; I know it's not about hunting.

    So anyone know of a "common sense regulation" that you agree with?

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    40

    Post imported post

    The Constitution originally forbids the federal government maintaining a standing army (US Constitution Article I. Section 8). What was requiredwas a continuation of the colonial practice ofmandatory militia service by all (free)males aged 18 to 45 (The Second Militia Act of 1792). These militias were under direct authority of the variousstate governors but were subject to recall by the congress for the defense of any state beingthreatened andunable to repulseits enemy by its own might. The militiacould also be used by the governor to protect the state from unwarranted encroachments by the federal government on the freedoms of the statesas described by JamesMadisonin Federalist Paper No. 46.


    It is arguable that the outcome of TheWar Between the States (in which statemilitias were called up to fight offwhat was considered by many, at the time,to be a despotic federal government )had as much to do with the virtual abolition of true militia service as anything. In other words, in the fight betweenfederal power and state power, the federal power prevailed and set about eliminating further threat from the states. The state militias became so weakened thatby the time of The Spanish-American War they came up lacking and a move was madeby the federal government to take over equiping and training them.The MilitiaAct of 1903converted the state militias to the National Guard.

    All of this to say that the original armed might of the people has been erroded and has gone from beinga civic duty which was unquestionable, to the modern situation which leads some to, now,even question therelevance of the Second Ammendment itself.

    There really is no longereither foundation or structurefor a militia, well regulated or otherwise, that envolves all citizens, as entended, to be used to helpkeep each state free.

    The more's the pity.


  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Kent county, Delaware, USA
    Posts
    322

    Post imported post

    jp49911 wrote:
    jp49911 wrote:
    "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."

    ...what's a "common sense regulation
    "?

    How would people protect themselves from an oppressive government if there are regulations that say "we can be armed wherever we go but you can only carry where we permit (give permission/privilege; oposite of a right)."

    How would people protect themselves from an oppressive government if there are regulations that say "we have no limits on the firepower we can have but you can only use the type of weapons we permit (i.e. government=full-auto; the people=semi-auto)."

    Thoughts...
    Thanks for the replies but I was hoping for more thoughts on what's a "common sense regulation?"

    The question of what the second amendment is really about was almost rhetorical; I know it's not about hunting.

    So anyone know of a "common sense regulation" that you agree with?
    I am not a scholar, but the 2A is clear to me.

    "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State," is discriptive as the rest as it can not stand alone as a sentence.

    "the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." this is the meat as it is of itself a complete sentence

    Therefore the only common sense regulations that I see that would not violate the 2A would be a regulation requiring a reasonable minimum number of guns, or ammunition required for citizens to have.

    For example:

    being as the security of our State dependson it's citizenry to maintainarms in defense of the state, andrifles are more efficient for this purpose, all citizens of the Stateare required tohave possession or access to a minimum of one rifle, suitable for defense as listed in appendix A, and a minimum of 250 charges of ammunition for said rifle. Any citizenmay apply to the state, to have a rifle and a sealed supply of 250loads provided to them, to be maintained by the individual citizen. This provision is only a minimum requirement and shall not be taken as a limitation of the amount or types of arms to be either kept or carried in any lawful manor.

    Appendix A: (a list of minimum caliber rifles suitable for State defense purposes)

    JMO


  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Greensboro, ,
    Posts
    172

    Post imported post

    ijusam wrote
    I am not a scholar, but the 2A is clear to me.

    "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State," is discriptive as the rest as it can not stand alone as a sentence.

    "the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." this is the meat as it is of itself a complete sentence

    Therefore the only common sense regulations that I see that would not violate the 2A would be a regulation requiring a reasonable minimum number of guns, or ammunition required for citizens to have.

    For example:

    being as the security of our State dependson it's citizenry to maintainarms in defense of the state, andrifles are more efficient for this purpose, all citizens of the Stateare required tohave possession or access to a minimum of one rifle, suitable for defense as listed in appendix A, and a minimum of 250 charges of ammunition for said rifle. Any citizenmay apply to the state, to have a rifle and a sealed supply of 250loads provided to them, to be maintained by the individual citizen. This provision is only a minimum requirement and shall not be taken as a limitation of the amount or types of arms to be either kept or carried in any lawful manor.

    Appendix A: (a list of minimum caliber rifles suitable for State defense purposes)

    JMO

    Now that's common sense!

  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Wentworth, North Carolina, USA
    Posts
    142

    Post imported post


    MILITIA


    1.
    a body of citizens enrolled for military service, and called out periodically for drill but serving full time only in emergencies.




    2.
    a body of citizen soldiers as distinguished from professional soldiers.




    3.
    all able-bodied males considered by law eligible for military service.




    4.

    a body of citizens organized in a paramilitary group and typically regarding themselves as defenders of individual rights against the presumed interference of the federal government.

    5 An army composed of ordinary citizens rather than professional soldiers
    6 .A military force that is not part of a regular army and is subject to call for service in an emergency.
    7 The whole body of physically fit civilians eligible by law for military service.

    The definition of militia seems pretty clear to me.
    The one thing every definition I have read has in common is that it refers to ordinary citizens not the army, navy,marines, ect.

    So in plain english"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."

    Because we need the right of a well regulated ( ORGANIZED ) militia ( just a bunch of ordinary citizens) to secure the security of a free state ( To hold on to our hard won freedoms) , The right ( THE RIGHT NOT THE PRIVELAGE OR HONOR OR ANY OTHER POLITICAL WORD YOU CHOOSE TO USE ) to keep ( to own ) & bear ( to have on your person ) arms .

    Seems pretty straight forward to me

  12. #12
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Southwest Aisa, North Carolina, USA
    Posts
    70

    Post imported post

    2nd amendment protects our freedom of speech and freedom of religion, that’s all

  13. #13
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Wentworth, North Carolina, USA
    Posts
    142

    Post imported post

    Redwolf wrote:
    2nd amendment protects our freedom of speech and freedom of religion, that’s all
    :shock:

  14. #14
    Campaign Veteran
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Lobelville, Tennessee, USA
    Posts
    2,615

    Post imported post

    Redwolf wrote:
    2nd amendment protects our freedom of speech and freedom of religion, that’s all
    No, bud, that's the 1st Amendment.

  15. #15
    Campaign Veteran
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Lobelville, Tennessee, USA
    Posts
    2,615

    Post imported post

    What would be "common sense regulation" or "common sense gun control"?

    What ever it takes to be able to consistantly get a close multiple bullet placement within a 2 inch circle at 30 ft, with a handgun, or at 100 yds with a long gun.

    That's the only "common sense gun control" that I find acceptable.

  16. #16
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Southwest Aisa, North Carolina, USA
    Posts
    70

    Post imported post

    Task Force 16 wrote:
    Redwolf wrote:
    2nd amendment protects our freedom of speech and freedom of religion, that’s all
    No, bud, that's the 1st Amendment.
    I'm very sorry to point this out but the 1st gives you the rights, the 2nd protects them. And if you don't believe me give up your guns and see how long you keep your 1st amendment rights or any for that matter.

  17. #17
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Greensboro, North Carolina, USA
    Posts
    1,052

    Post imported post

    jp49911 wrote:
    "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."
    The 2nd amendment is a combination of three thoughts.

    One should interpret it as such:

    1. A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state shall not be infringed.

    2. The right of the People to keep arms shall not be infringed.

    3. The right of the People to bear arms shall not be infringed.

    The latter two thoughts, keep and bear arms, are not there exclusively to support the former thought, a well regulated militia. Each supports each other and each stands alone.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •