- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
Best 2nd amendment piece I've seen in a while
Posted on 6/27/14 at 9:50 am
Posted on 6/27/14 at 9:50 am
This guy breaks it down:
quote:
The Second amendment to the United States Constitution provides:
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 history of the Second Amendment indicates that its purposes were to secure to each individual the right to keep and bear arms so that he could protect his absolute individual rights as well as carry out his obligation to assist in the common defense. It is evident that the framers of the Constitution did not intend to limit the right to keep and bear arms to a formal military body or organized militia, but intended to provide for an "unorganized" armed citizenry prepared to assist in the common defense against a foreign invader or a domestic tyrant. This concept of an unorganized, armed citizenry clearly recognized the right, and moreover the duty, to keep and bear arms in an individual capacity.
People say it was a mystery why the Founders added the 2nd Amendment? What a bunch of BS!!! They clearly stated why they did in their personal writings.
"The great object is that every man be armed. Everyone who is able might have a gun." PATRICK HENRY, 3 Elliot, Debates at 386.
"And what country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not warned from time to time, that this people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms... The tree of Liberty must be refreshed from time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants." THOMAS JEFFERSON, letter to William S. Smith, 1787, in S. Padover (Ed.), Jefferson, On Democracy (1939), p. 20.
"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
"A free people ought...to be armed..." GEORGE WASHINGTON, speech of Jan. 7, 1790 in the Boston Independent Chronicle, Jan. 14, 1790.
"The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed." ALEXANDER HAMILTON, the Federalist Papers at 184-8
"The constitutions of most of our States assert that all power is inherent in the people; that … it is their right and duty to be at all times armed; … "Thomas Jefferson letter to Justice John Cartwright, June 5, 1824. ME 16:45.
"A Bill of Rights is what the people are entitled to against every government, and what no just government should refuse, or rest on inference." Thomas Jefferson
The Constitution is not an instrument for the government to restrain the people, it is an instrument for the people to restrain the government-lest it come to dominate our lives and interests." Patrick Henry
"Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birth-right of an American... The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people." TENCH COXE, Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788.
"Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety" Benjamin Franklin
"I prefer dangerous freedom over peaceful slavery", Thomas Jefferson
"A strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species of exercises, I advise the gun. While this gives moderate exercise to the body, it gives boldness, enterprise and independence to the mind. Games played with the ball and others of that nature, are too violent for the body and stamp no character on the mind. Let your gun therefore be the constant companion of your walks." THOMAS JEFFERSON, Encyclopedia of T. Jefferson, 318 (Foley, Ed., 1967).
Also, the liberals acts as if Supreme Court members have never commented previously on the Amendment:
"The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them."-- Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story of the John Marshall Court
"One of the ordinary modes, by which tyrants accomplish their purposes without resistance, is, by disarming the people, and making it an offense to keep arms."-- Constitutional scholar and Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story, 1840
"To prohibit a citizen from wearing or carry a war arm... is an unwarranted restriction upon the constitutional right to keep and bear arms. If cowardly and dishonorable men sometimes shoot unarmed men with army pistols or guns, the evil must be prevented by the penitentiary and gallows, and not by a general deprivation of a constitutional privilege."
- Arkansas Supreme Court –1878
This post was edited on 6/27/14 at 10:03 am
5
Posted on 6/27/14 at 9:56 am to Broke
But they were talking about muskets not AR-15's.
Posted on 6/27/14 at 9:56 am to Broke
quote:
"To prohibit a citizen from wearing or carry a war arm... is an unwarranted restriction upon the constitutional right to keep and bear arms. If cowardly and dishonorable men sometimes shoot unarmed men with army pistols or guns, the evil must be prevented by the penitentiary and gallows, and not by a general deprivation of a constitutional privilege."
This is the way I look at it. Too bad we don't use the gallows anymore though. May make people think twice before commiting crime.
quote:
But they were talking about muskets not AR-15's.
Not sure if trolling or joking but in the mid 1800's they were not talking about muskets anymore.
This post was edited on 6/27/14 at 9:58 am
Posted on 6/27/14 at 10:12 am to Trout Bandit
quote:
But they were talking about muskets not AR-15's.
Wut
Posted on 6/27/14 at 10:22 am to Trout Bandit
quote:
But they were talking about muskets not AR-15's.
Sarcasm?
If not, what type of rifle was the US Army using when the Constitution was written?
Posted on 6/27/14 at 10:34 am to weagle99
quote:
If not, what type of rifle was the US Army using when the Constitution was written?
Dependable ones. Just like now.
Posted on 6/27/14 at 10:34 am to stevengtiger
quote:
Not sure if trolling or joking but in the mid 1800's they were not talking about muskets anymore.
Not sure if serious or trolling, but the Bill of Rights was ratified in 1791, not the mid 1800's.
Posted on 6/27/14 at 10:46 am to stevengtiger
I'm joking and trolling. I hate libtard's reasons for why the 2nd Amendment shouldn't be interpreted the same now as when it was written. If the reason for that right is to stand up to the government and revolt we at least better be able to arm ourselves appropriately. The government has AR-15's, we should have access to them too.
Posted on 6/27/14 at 10:46 am to NOFOX
quote:
Not sure if serious or trolling, but the Bill of Rights was ratified in 1791, not the mid 1800's.
The quote in my post was from the Arkansas Supreme Court in 1878.
Posted on 6/27/14 at 12:45 pm to Broke
"Arms" isn't limited to rifles. If you need to protect yourself against tyranny, you need stinger missiles. How else you gonna stop the jackbooted thugs from chasing you down in a Blackhawk?
Posted on 6/27/14 at 12:45 pm to Broke
IMHO
This is the big issue, the amendment clarifies the purpose for a class/group of people to bear arms and for a particular reason. That right wasn't extended to everyone for every instance.
The framers certainly believed in the importance of citizen soldiers and the need for a militia after the revolutionary war. However, it was a class of people that entertained this right.
Militia groups were ordinary people (white and more often than not, limited to land owners or stake holders in land), but they were a semi-organized group (appointed leaders, general understanding of formations, held regular meetings, etc.).
It would be conceivable that the framers did intend for ordinary citizens to bear arms because they would be a part of a militia at that time.
However, that right wasn't extended to everyone. Women, Native-Americans, slaves, outlaws, children, etc. certainly weren't included in that group because they weren't allowed to serve in militias.
Thus, where do we draw the line today because we don't even have militias of regular citizens.
Yes, there are national guards, but that is a part of the federal governments army (the exact army the framers were worried about).
People certainly don't hold regular meetings, appoint leaders of their group, have general formation practice.
So, do only military personal in good standing with the law have the right to bear arms?
We have to remember that there were very few professional solders in the US. at that time.
Thus, many believe the true intent was for a semi-organized, regional military response unit. It was needed for a practical response to foreign invaders, Native Americans, and potentially other states.
Not to mention that absolute necessity of survival, hunting was an absolute necessity at that time for food.
We don't face such issues today and have a much stronger federal army manned with the best professional soldiers in the world.
Common armed citizens in the US wouldn't stand a chance against our own military forces.
Thus, the question arises, why even have the right if we aren't even following the intended purpose and have little practical use of its intended application.
Not only that, if we follow that strict reading of militia, who has the right to bear arms because only a select few were ever imagined to have that right.
Did the framers have the intention to extend that right to citizens, I would say yes...for the purposes that we use firearms for today...no.
Adding the technological advancements to the mix only makes the issue harder to discern because of the increased danger of "arms" vs. their practical use under the 2nd amendment.
The deeper we dive into the issue, the murkier the water gets.
quote:
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.
This is the big issue, the amendment clarifies the purpose for a class/group of people to bear arms and for a particular reason. That right wasn't extended to everyone for every instance.
The framers certainly believed in the importance of citizen soldiers and the need for a militia after the revolutionary war. However, it was a class of people that entertained this right.
Militia groups were ordinary people (white and more often than not, limited to land owners or stake holders in land), but they were a semi-organized group (appointed leaders, general understanding of formations, held regular meetings, etc.).
It would be conceivable that the framers did intend for ordinary citizens to bear arms because they would be a part of a militia at that time.
However, that right wasn't extended to everyone. Women, Native-Americans, slaves, outlaws, children, etc. certainly weren't included in that group because they weren't allowed to serve in militias.
Thus, where do we draw the line today because we don't even have militias of regular citizens.
Yes, there are national guards, but that is a part of the federal governments army (the exact army the framers were worried about).
People certainly don't hold regular meetings, appoint leaders of their group, have general formation practice.
So, do only military personal in good standing with the law have the right to bear arms?
We have to remember that there were very few professional solders in the US. at that time.
Thus, many believe the true intent was for a semi-organized, regional military response unit. It was needed for a practical response to foreign invaders, Native Americans, and potentially other states.
Not to mention that absolute necessity of survival, hunting was an absolute necessity at that time for food.
We don't face such issues today and have a much stronger federal army manned with the best professional soldiers in the world.
Common armed citizens in the US wouldn't stand a chance against our own military forces.
Thus, the question arises, why even have the right if we aren't even following the intended purpose and have little practical use of its intended application.
Not only that, if we follow that strict reading of militia, who has the right to bear arms because only a select few were ever imagined to have that right.
Did the framers have the intention to extend that right to citizens, I would say yes...for the purposes that we use firearms for today...no.
Adding the technological advancements to the mix only makes the issue harder to discern because of the increased danger of "arms" vs. their practical use under the 2nd amendment.
The deeper we dive into the issue, the murkier the water gets.
Posted on 6/27/14 at 1:40 pm to stewie
ZOMFG!
Posted on 6/27/14 at 4:36 pm to Mung
quote:
I prefer dangerous freedom over peaceful slavery", Thomas Jefferson
Freakin boom
Posted on 6/27/14 at 4:40 pm to stewie
quote:
However, that right wasn't extended to everyone.
the right of the people to keep and bear arms
quote:
Women, Native-Americans, slaves, outlaws, children, etc. certainly weren't included in that group because they weren't allowed to serve in militias.
So, because the document was imperfect, and the nation was imperfect, composed of imperfect human beings, we just throw the plain language of the document away?
Posted on 6/27/14 at 5:58 pm to stewie
quote:
However, that right wasn't extended to everyone. Women,
I had to go through a hell of a background check to buy my guns. And an even more thorough background check when I got my CCW, so
Carry on.......
Eta:
quote:
"To prohibit a citizen from wearing or carry a war arm... is an unwarranted restriction upon the constitutional right to keep and bear arms. If cowardly and dishonorable men sometimes shoot unarmed men with army pistols or guns, the evil must be prevented by the penitentiary and gallows, and not by a general deprivation of a constitutional privilege."
At least Arkansas got something correct.
This post was edited on 6/27/14 at 6:00 pm
Posted on 6/27/14 at 6:33 pm to stewie
quote:
stewie
Did you read this quote?
quote:
"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
Posted on 6/27/14 at 6:36 pm to stewie
quote:
Common armed citizens in the US wouldn't stand a chance against our own military forces.
You are being very naive with this statement which makes me wonder about the entirety of your post to be honest.
Posted on 6/27/14 at 7:41 pm to Broke
quote:
The Constitution is not an instrument for the government to restrain the people, it is an instrument for the people to restrain the government-lest it come to dominate our lives and interests." Patrick Henry
Some people need to be reminded of this.
Posted on 6/27/14 at 9:25 pm to Trout Bandit
This would make a nice bumper sticker
To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them.” -George Mason,
Trout Bandit if you disagree with the constitution, Leave delta is ready when you are.
To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them.” -George Mason,
Trout Bandit if you disagree with the constitution, Leave delta is ready when you are.
Posted on 6/27/14 at 9:47 pm to Mung
quote:
ZOMFG!
the Dung has spoken
Page 1 of 2
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News