Started By
Message

re: Second Amendment rights

Posted on 11/7/17 at 1:20 pm to
Posted by FooManChoo
Member since Dec 2012
46185 posts
Posted on 11/7/17 at 1:20 pm to
quote:

You're missing the point though. The idea is that the right to gun ownership exists independently of the militia clause. Therefore, the argument for gun ownership does not come down to being armed to effectively fight the state.
The founders understood an inherent right to self defense. I don't think it was even in doubt that arms were lawful and encouraged for protection on top of hunting, sport, etc. The 2nd amendment wasn't included for those things alone but specifically within the context of fighting against tyranny.

The BOR was provided to enumerate specific rights that the people had that the federal government wasn't allowed to violate. One of these rights was the right to bear arms against the government. The founders had done that very thing not long before the BOR was ratified and they understood its importance to preserving liberty. There are an abundance of quotes from the founding fathers about bearing arms and their usefulness, but most often were they spoken about in terms of preserving life and liberty. They didn't want the people defenseless against the government.
Posted by Taxing Authority
Houston
Member since Feb 2010
62774 posts
Posted on 11/7/17 at 1:23 pm to
quote:

Therefore, the argument for gun ownership does not come down to being armed to effectively fight the state.
methinks it’s you hat missed the point. He’s pointing out that it’s not the sole purpose, and those the argument that “lack of firepower” is irrelevant to the purpose of the 2A. He’s literally arguing the opposite of what you’re claiming.
This post was edited on 11/7/17 at 1:23 pm
Posted by cahoots
Member since Jan 2009
9134 posts
Posted on 11/7/17 at 1:33 pm to
quote:

methinks it’s you hat missed the point. He’s pointing out that it’s not the sole purpose, and those the argument that “lack of firepower” is irrelevant to the purpose of the 2A. He’s literally arguing the opposite of what you’re claiming.


Man, that is not the "opposite" of what I'm saying. Somewhat different, but not opposing. Let's say there is a point in the future where firearms alone are truly ineffective against the government. We might not be there yet but let's say we get there one day. Do you think the second amendment would still protect the right to arms at that point? The answer according to Scalia is yes because the right to bear arms is not intimately tied to a purpose
This post was edited on 11/7/17 at 1:40 pm
first pageprev pagePage 3 of 3Next pagelast page
refresh

Back to top
logoFollow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News
Follow us on X, Facebook and Instagram to get the latest updates on LSU Football and Recruiting.

FacebookXInstagram