Boards > Pirate's Cove
The 2nd Amendment
CBWx2:
Preface: For the purposes of removing this debate from being framed around a horrible and senseless American tragedy, I decided it best to have the 2nd amendment debate in a separate thread.
Was the 2nd amendment's purpose to allow private citizens to arm themselves to defend against their own government? This is the argument that so many gun enthusiasts have levied time and time again against those that call for stricter regulation. After all, it's a well known fact that the founding fathers were all about insurrection, right? They were all for armed rebellions to protect individuals from the oppression of government, right?
Before one buys into this argument, a logical question to be asked should be; if the founders were so opposed to central government or central authority, why create one at all? Why go through the trouble of establishing a central government only to allow for it to be overthrown by any group of angry citizens with firearms that disagree with a certain law or ordinance? Granting the right to rebel whenever a law or ordinance passes that is seen as an affront to one’s own sense of liberty doesn't ensure freedom. It ensures anarchy. So if anarchy was the point, then why bother creating a central authority at all?
The 2nd Amendment is written as follows:
"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 first part of that sentence provides some insight. The words “well regulated militia” sounds a little different than how the 2nd amendment is currently interpreted, especially among those on the far right. “Well regulated” sounds a bit like a call for government oversight, and a “militia” is altogether different than allowing every Tom, **CENSORED**, and Harry to own their own private arsenal just in case they feel the need to rise up against the powers that be.
A militia is a body of private citizens that are trained for military service and can be called upon as a functioning army in times of emergency. In other words, a militia is essentially the same as a group of reservists. Not trained to rise up against the government, but trained in service of the government. Further evidence of this intent can be found in Article 1 Section 8 of the US Constitution:
"The Congress shall have Power… to provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress…"
In other words, the intent of the 2nd amendment was to allow each state to have it’s own functioning army of trained reservists, which were to be trained and armed by the federal government, and were to be called on by the state and federal governments to enforce laws and ordinances passed by those governments. If a potential armed insurgency was seen as a good thing by the founders, then why did they grant congress the powers to train and call on militias for the expressed purpose of suppressing insurrections?
Another clue comes from the Militia Acts of 1792, which were written in response to…wait for it…an armed rebellion, Shay's Rebellion, which was started by a former Revolutionary War vet who rose up against the Massachusetts state government.
The purpose of those acts were to make it easier for the federal government to respond to threats of national security. The first expanded the powers of the president to call upon state militias to respond to a threat, something that could only previously be done at the federal level by congress. The reason for this was to ensure that even if a rebellion took place during times congress was out of session, the president could have authority to respond. The second outlined the rules to how the federal and state governments would regulate militias, and expanded militia membership so that the government would not run the risk of being out-manned by an invading or insurgent force. In less than three years after their passage, these acts were invoked to put down another armed rebellion, this time against the federal government. The Whiskey Rebellion, which occurred as the result of a federal tax on whiskey imposed during the presidency of George Washington.
There is enough evidence to suggest that those who interpret the 2nd amendment as granting the freedom to rebel against the US are peddling a load of horse crap. The Florida National Guard and every other National Guard under the service of the other 49 states and US territories stand as a representation of the type of militia that the 2nd amendment intended on creating. The 2nd amendment was not created to empower a bunch of paranoid anarchists with intent on sedition and armed rebellion at the first sign of discontent with the federal government.
olafberserker:
lol, great idea after propping your "argument" up against the tragedy in Connecticut for 30+ pages ......... ::)
CBWx2:
--- Quote from: olafberserker on December 20, 2012, 07:49:22 AM ---lol, great idea after propping your "argument" up against the tragedy in Connecticut for 30+ pages ......... ::)
--- End quote ---
So since you are so opposed to me having done that in your view, how about a thoughtful and fact filled retort? Or are you capable of such a thing? I think I know what the answer to that is. Go ahead and prove me wrong, champ.
spartan:
The Federalist papers clearly state that an armed citizenry is the last line of defense against a tyrannical and/or overbearing Govt.
"Well regulated" is not referring to rules and regulations but discipline and training. Militias were also made up of volunteers, who, for the most part turned up with their own weapons. Without them their would not be any militia. And finally, I very much doubt if the founding fathers were writing all this stuff so folks could go hunting on the weekend. They specifically put it in there so citizens could defend themselves against all enemies, foreign and domestic.
olafberserker:
--- Quote from: CBWx2 on December 20, 2012, 08:42:37 AM ---
--- Quote from: olafberserker on December 20, 2012, 07:49:22 AM ---lol, great idea after propping your "argument" up against the tragedy in Connecticut for 30+ pages ......... ::)
--- End quote ---
So since you are so opposed to me having done that in your view, how about a thoughtful and fact filled retort? Or are you capable of such a thing? I think I know what the answer to that is. Go ahead and prove me wrong, champ.
--- End quote ---
not interested champ, it's been proven once again in the other thread that attempting a discussion/debate with you is a waste of time ..... now spin boy spin
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
Go to full version