The 2nd Amendment

[spartan]

I'm not arguing whether or not Americans have the right to bear arms. Private citizens can own and keep firearms. That's what the constitution says, that's what it means. What I'm arguing is whether or not the government has the right to establish guidelines on the ownership of arms. Like I said before, limiting the type of arms a citizen can own is not infringing on their right to own firearms. It's infringing on their right to own a particular firearm, and this isn't something that the government doesn't already do, and hasn't already done since the establishment of our nation.

The prevailing argument against limiting the citizenry to sub-military grade weaponry is this notion that it was the intent of the constitution to empower citizens with the arms necessary to revolt against the government whenever they see fit. I am merely challenging that line of defense.

The supreme court has already decided the Govt can set guidelines. When it ruled against Chicago it said you can put in place rules and regulations but not so that it makes it impossible to own a firearm. There was also the "Assault Weapons" ban of 1994. Nobody is saying it cannot be done. I am not going to address the other points you raised because they are a distraction and an argument on detail. The crux of the article was:

"Was the 2nd amendment's purpose to allow private citizens to arm themselves to defend against their own government? "

The answer is yes. Was it the only reason for their existance? No. Using modern examples against the original intent is fatuous at best. Back in those days, in times of trouble, joining the militia was like being deputized. Raise your right hand, boom, your in let's go kick ass. Look at Davy Crocket and his Virginians at the Alamo, not exactly a "well regulated militia" as per your standards was it? They weren't very good at following any orders let alone stamdardized ones, but damn they could fight.

The militias were also State entitiies not Federal ones. Any Federal responsibilities were primarily secondary to their State ones. This is important because it is indicative of how people saw the role and influence of the Federal Govt. It's purpose was to assist the 13 States work together for their common interest, not tell them what do.

[CBWx2]

"The beauty of the second amendment is that it will not be needed until they try to take it." -Thomas Jefferson

Comments: We currently have no evidence that Thomas Jefferson said or wrote, "The beauty of the Second Amendment is that it will not be needed until they try to take it" or any of its listed variations.

http://www.monticello.org/site/jefferson/beauty-second-amendment-quotation

"What country can preserve its liberties if its rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance?"-Thomas Jefferson

Jefferson wrote this quote in response to Shay's Rebellion. The same rebellion that George Washington put down with military force. Suffice it to say, Jefferson wasn't in the majority view. The full transcript also reveals that he wasn't particularly sympathetic to their cause. In fact, he believed them to be wrong, but merely was stating that this sort of thing, if happening infrequently, wasn't terrible, and that it was the job of the government to better explain their actions so that an accord can be reached with it's rebelling citizenry. In other words, his position wasn't that the government of Massachusetts had acted inappropriately, but rather that they hadn't adequately explained themselves to the public.

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_does_this_quote_from_Thomas_Jefferson_The_tree_of_liberty_must_be_refreshed_from_time_to_time_with_the_blood_of_patriots_and_tyrants_It_is_a_natural_manure_mean

"The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government".-Thomas Jefferson

Status: This quotation has not been found in any of the writings of Thomas Jefferson. It is often seen preceded by the sentence, "No freeman shall be debarred the use of arms," which is from Jefferson's draft of the Virginia Constitution.

http://www.monticello.org/site/jefferson/strongest-reason-people-tokeep-and-bear-armsquotation

" The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." - Thomas Jefferson.

That is part of the letter to Colonel Smith about Shay's Rebellion, already addressed above.

Need more ??  Because I can go founder by founder if you like.

Sure. But at least make sure that they are real quotes and are presented in the proper context this time. 

I know you thought this thread would stir a great debate. You probably just read in one of your Pinko blogs that "well regulated militia"  is an opening to attack the 2nd amendment with. The fact is we already know what the founders original intent was. It can be found in the federalist papers , it can be found in the countless letters of correspondence between the men , and it can be found in the congress debate transcripts .

You're right. All those fake quotes you posted sure set me straight. I'm sure your grasp of the founders intent is spot on, regardless of the fact that you never bothered to check to see if the statements that you are basing your arguments on were ever actually uttered by those who you claim spoke them.

"I ask, Sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them."
George Mason
Co-author of the Second Amendment
during Virginia's Convention to Ratify the Constitution, 1788

There's that nasty "militia" word again. The founders supported the concept of a civilian army, not an armed populace set on insurrection at the first, or second sign of discontent with their government. That, my friend, isn't freedom. It is anarchy, and mob rule.

[RoddyBama1]

Your opinion means less than nothing on this matter CBW. The Supreme Court of the United States has already ruled on this matter in Heller vs the District of Columbia and also the Miller case.

All of your proposed laws would run into a brick wall called the SCOTUS, unless the can magically find the amount of votes to create a constitutional amendment which will not happen. End of  story.

[spartan]

Ironic for this thread that Shay's Rebellion was put down by a local militia. Damn that 2nd Amendment thing!!!

[ufojoe]

No matter what im still keeping my guns haha.. Im reporting them stolen

*knock knock*

me - Hello

feds- Yes. Im afraid we're here to take your guns nig. 4 pistols, 3 semi automatic rifles, a shotgun, and assault rifle. thats enough to start you own chapter of the black panthers

me- sorry sir, a gang of mexicans came into my house and stole all of them

feds-those damm mexicans again

Good luck going after a tank or F-16 or unmanned drone with your guns.  Or, maybe they'll drop a smart bomb on your place.

Back then, you could fight the government with guns. Now? Not so much.

[ufojoe]

Ironic for this thread that Shay's Rebellion was put down by a local militia. Damn that 2nd Amendment thing!!!

You should join up with your local militia when the government does something that really makes you mad. Good luck with that fight.

Antiquated argument.

You want guns for self defense? Great. You want guns to protect you from the government? Laughable.

[CBWx2]

The crux of the article was:

"Was the 2nd amendment's purpose to allow private citizens to arm themselves to defend against their own government? "

The answer is yes. Was it the only reason for their existence? No. Using modern examples against the original intent is fatuous at best.

And I am suggesting that the answer is no. There is a difference between taking up arms against a dictator or a tyrant and taking up arms against an elected government over a policy dispute. The founders understood this distinction. Those in modern times who suggest that the founders were partial towards open armed revolt do not. I'm not using modern examples, I'm using examples of their time. The fact is that the founders put down two armed rebellions within the first 6 years of the constitution being ratified. It seems a bit specious to suggest that the founders were fond or openly accepting of armed rebellion when they used martial force to quell rebellions against the very government that they created.

[spartan]

Ironic for this thread that Shay's Rebellion was put down by a local militia. Damn that 2nd Amendment thing!!!

You should join up with your local militia when the government does something that really makes you mad. Good luck with that fight.

Antiquated argument.

You want guns for self defense? Great. You want guns to protect you from the government? Laughable.

Arguing that the 2nd amendment is outmoded is different than arguing against it's purpose. No the founders could not see nuclear powered submarines or stealth bombers, but what they could see was an overpowering Govt that imposed its will on the people. They had just freed themselves from that because of their right to bear arms.

There is a legitimate argument IMO that the 2nd Amendment should be repealed, because as you say, M16 look alike v M1A1 Abrams is a bit of a no brainer. But if that s what you want to do, then come out and say it. Good luck because you will face stiff resistance as the 2nd today is more symbolic than effective, but don't fart around the edges with faux interpretations, hypotheticals and "it's for the children!'

[CBWx2]

Your opinion means less than nothing on this matter CBW. The Supreme Court of the United States has already ruled on this matter in Heller vs the District of Columbia and also the Miller case.

Those cases involved laws that banned gun ownership in general, not specific types of weaponry. You can't ban gun ownership. It's written in the constitution. But you can ban the type of firearms that can be privately owned. That has been the case since the inception of the US Constitution.

[spartan]

The crux of the article was:

"Was the 2nd amendment's purpose to allow private citizens to arm themselves to defend against their own government? "

The answer is yes. Was it the only reason for their existence? No. Using modern examples against the original intent is fatuous at best.

And I am suggesting that the answer is no. There is a difference between taking up arms against a dictator or a tyrant and taking up arms against an elected government over a policy dispute. The founders understood this distinction. Those in modern times who suggest that the founders were partial towards open armed revolt do not. I'm not using modern examples, I'm using examples of their time. The fact is that the founders put down two armed rebellions within the first 6 years of the constitution being ratified. It seems a bit specious to suggest that the founders were fond or openly accepting of armed rebellion when they used martial force to quell rebellions against the very government that they created.

So what is the purpose of this thread then? The article you posted and started it with asks and addresses that question.

[spartan]

Your opinion means less than nothing on this matter CBW. The Supreme Court of the United States has already ruled on this matter in Heller vs the District of Columbia and also the Miller case.

Those cases involved laws that banned gun ownership in general, not specific types of weaponry. You can't ban gun ownership. It's written in the constitution. But you can ban the type of firearms that can be privately owned. That has been the case since the inception of the US Constitution.

This is not an issue. We've already had the 1994 Assault Weapons ban, that pretty much answers your question doesn't it?

[CBWx2]

Ironic for this thread that Shay's Rebellion was put down by a local militia. Damn that 2nd Amendment thing!!!

You should join up with your local militia when the government does something that really makes you mad. Good luck with that fight.

Antiquated argument.

You want guns for self defense? Great. You want guns to protect you from the government? Laughable.

Arguing that the 2nd amendment is outmoded is different than arguing against it's purpose. No the founders could not see nuclear powered submarines or stealth bombers, but what they could see was an overpowering Govt that imposed its will on the people. They had just freed themselves from that because of their right to bear arms.

Back then, it was illegal for private citizens to own cannons and mortars. So one could argue that even though they supported private gun ownership for self defense, they still saw a danger in the unrestricted proliferation of military grade weaponry.

There is a legitimate argument IMO that the 2nd Amendment should be repealed, because as you say, M16 look alike v M1A1 Abrams is a bit of a no brainer. But if that s what you want to do, then come out and say it. Good luck because you will face stiff resistance as the 2nd today is more symbolic than effective, but don't fart around the edges with faux interpretations, hypotheticals and "it's for the children!'

There is no need to repeal it, nor do I support such a thing. I have no problem with arms being owned for the purposes of security. But the question is, what is appropriate for the purposes of security? I'm not suggesting that the 2nd amendment is an all or nothing concept. That's what your side seems to be doing.

[spartan]

There is no need to repeal it, nor do I support such a thing. I have no problem with arms being owned for the purposes of security. But the question is, what is appropriate for the purposes of security? I'm not suggesting that the 2nd amendment is an all or nothing concept. That's what your side seems to be doing.

Repealing the 2nd and banning pretty much everything is the only thing that will prevent the events of last week from happening again.

[RoddyBama1]

Foremost expert on 2nd amendment UCLA Law professor Eugene Volokh

Semi-automatic guns, including “assault weapons,” are not machine guns. They do not fire more than one bullet each time the trigger is pulled, unlike a machine gun. The sale of machine guns and fully automatic weapons has long been banned. By contrast, much of America’s guns are “semi-automatic.” Indeed, so many guns in this country are semi-automatic — the way most cars run on gasoline — that The Washington Examiner’s Tim Carney says that “semiauto is the norm. As Al Tompkins at [the] Poynter [Institute] puts it: ‘The use of the phrase semi-automatic when talking about guns is like using the phrase ‘gasoline cars.’” As Carney notes, New York Times reporters who write about gun violence do not even understand what a semi-automatic gun is, erroneously assuming it has something to do with whether a bullet from the gun can pierce a bullet-resistant “vest” (it doesn’t) when in fact the word “semi-automatic” merely describes the gun’s “loading mechanism.”

Congress and the president may pass an “assault weapons” ban to make themselves feel good, but I won’t expect much in the way of results for public safety if they do. As Professor Volokh notes,

http://www.openmarket.org/2012/12/19/expert-on-gun-regulation-says-assault-weapons-bans-are-useless/

[CBWx2]

There is no need to repeal it, nor do I support such a thing. I have no problem with arms being owned for the purposes of security. But the question is, what is appropriate for the purposes of security? I'm not suggesting that the 2nd amendment is an all or nothing concept. That's what your side seems to be doing.

Repealing the 2nd and banning pretty much everything is the only thing that will prevent the events of last week from happening again.

No it isn't.