The second amendment/opinions?

V

Vailin Krow

Joined
Dec 6, 1998
Messages
129
All right, i just got back from a major bitching session from my history professor who thinks that the amendment was ONLY refering that militia's should be able to carry/have anything sharper than a fork.

I tried to show my opinion that it was saying that the 'well regulated militia' was there because of the amendment to make sure the government WOULDN'T disarm the public and get even more power.

I'd especially like to hear from Law students or what not and cops...but what does everything think of the 2nd amendment...the right to bear arms.

------------------
"I wouldn't mind you being inside my head if you weren't clearly so crazy."
 
Experience tells me that the last people to start a 2nd amendment --or any political argument, for that matter--discussion with are professors who are grading you.<g>

If you want some good background on the "pro" side of the debate, there's a good book called "A Well Regulated Militia": the author's name escapes me at the moment.

The book is a well written history of the 2nd and its historical antecedents, and a pretty solid look at the current state of affairs. It's not an NRA tract--he's got some pretty legitimate shots at them, but he's also got a list of the half-truths and appeals to the melodramatic used by the HCI crowd.

In part, AWRM takes the "militia" usage and examines it both as to original intent and to the later devolution of the term. I felt he made a good argument to the fact that the militia is NOT the Guard, but that it's instituted in the US Code as all males above a certain age, for a good reason.

There's also some good analysis of the major court cases that have created the precedents for many of today's actions, like the Miller decision about sawed off shotguns(forgive me if it isn't Miller--I'm working off memory here), which didn't actually address the RTKBA per se but focussed on what might be considered a military weapon.

And for people like me who don't have a lot of background reading and/or experience in firearms, it's a good book to learn about the essentially racist origins of gun control and the contortions the federal court has gone through to avoid addressing any real arguments both for and against RTKBA.

Also, from what I've read, your argument about RTKBA as the ultimate limit on government tyranny is the actual original intent--there's lots of source material to bolster that opinion, not that it cuts much ice with the standard pro-government statists that dominate all public debates.

I believe that the ACLU website may have their position on the 2nd, too, if you want the other view.

But, as the communist said to the capitalist, "Of course I believe in gun control--without all the guns I wouldn't have any control at all."

------------------
John G

 
Sounds to me like you are studying under a professor of revisionist history. There is a huge body of schlorship concerning the framers intent when they crafted the second amendment.Liberal academics love to turn a blind eye to this evidence while spouting their lies and fabrications. I recommend a book, The Second Amendment Primer, to anyone who would like to argue from a position of knowledge. It is widely advertised in the gun press and is worth every penny of it`s $20 dollar price.
2nd-1st!!
 
V.K. That section reads, "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 infinged."

Your prof is ignoring the part that says, "the right of the people." The same phrase appears in the Fourth, Ninth and Tenth Amendments as well. The courts have repeatedly ruled that in those cases the phrase refers to individual persons, not the police force, or the National Guard. For the prof to be right, we would have buy into the notion that only in the case of the second Amendment, only that one, "the people" does not mean individuals. And that requires a stretch, because there is nothing anywhere in the remainder of the Bill of Rights or in law to suggest that is the case. Reading the Federalist Papers as well as corrispondence by the founders make it clear they believed that armed citizens were required for the preservation of liberty. All governments get bigger at the expense of individual liberty and have done so as far back as one cares to look. That is in their nature, and at some point have all stepped in and disarmed their citizens. That prof's right to speak his mind is secured by the Second Amendment, whether he's aware of it or not.

The only argument he can claim is that Jefferson and the boys were wrong, or that they were a bunch of red necked, ingnorant rustics, with no real understanding of government, history, or the true nature of man. And if they stood before him now, I'm sure the prof would set them straight in a minute.

Jack
 
I strongly suppoprt the 2nd amendment. The second amendment is not about target shooting, hunting, or even self defense. IT is about keeping tyranny at bay in this country.

It baffles me that liberals seem to find things in the Constitution that are not there (a womans "right" to kill her baby).

BUT they go out of there way to carve away at the Freedoms that our founding fathers so wisely granted us (firearms ownership).

The politicians are all missing the point. THis horrid problem we have in our schools starts at home and must be fixed at home. NO NEW GUN CONTROL LAWS WILL SAVE ANYONE.

The politicians (liberal democrats for the most part) Are taking advantage of the dead as they use these horrid situations for political gain. It sickens me.

These problems must be fixed at home, from the ground up not from Capitol Hill down. They have it backwards.

BUT- Why do we expect our kids to act right when we as a Nation have allowed the murder of approximately 30 million (plus)babies since Roe V Wade?????????????????????

It will only get worse until we as a Nation repent and return to faith and family.
 
The opportunists take advantage of tradegy and the sheep follow, wrongly thinking their safer, as the power grabbers position themselves to dominate everyone's lives. Their eyes will be opened when all is lost and it's too late. Resistance will be futile after they've taken away our means to resist. I could say I hope I'm not around to see the end of this road, but what kind of America would be left to our children. And if things keep going as they have been, the end of this road is going to come pretty quick.

LD
 
What I find funny is that many Democrats and liberals have admitted that these laws would not have prevented the shootings at Columbine or in Atlanta today. Yet people are still calling in demanding that they change the laws to protect everybody. Quite simply, they are using the recent events to further their political goals.


------------------
JP Bullivant
 
No democracy is possible without an armed citizenry. History has shown this time and time again. But, with an armed citizenry any form of a gluttonous, unchecked, and tyrannical government is at risk. The only way that such a government can continue to do as it pleases is if power (via firearms)is taken from the people. This is exactly what the Clinton crew is doing right now.

The new gun control legislation that was passed today in the Senate is a direct violation of the 2nd Amendment. Any fool or history professor can see that. What they have done is set precedence to effectively stop any trading or selling of guns between private citizens. If this isn't a slap in the face of democracy and individual human rights, then I don't know what is. The next step will be confiscation (it happened in Australia, and it will happen here). One or two more school shootings and people will be lining up to give their guns away out of misplaced guilt.

The scary thing is, if we allow the government to take away our rights to bear arms, what is going to stop them from changing other aspects of the Constitution?

It wouldn't surprise me if the Clinton camp pushed to remove the amendment on presidential term limits. You know that SOB wants to stay in the White House. Hell, why don't we just proclaim him King? But, even if that doesn't work, he can wait for Hillary to run for president next election (what a nightmare that will be). This may sound ridiculous, but not nearly as ridiculous as the fact that we are allowing those idiots to take away (without a fight) one of the few protections given to citizens of a democracy.

The great irony of it all is that Clinton is on a holy crusade bombing the crap out of innocent people in Yugolsavia, while he is telling us that guns are evil.

No armed citizenry, no democracy.
No democracy, no America.

The American experiment is over.


[This message has been edited by fenixforge (edited 21 May 1999).]

[This message has been edited by fenixforge (edited 21 May 1999).]
 
For a good reading list:

http://www.tcsn.net/doncicci/freedom.htm

then come on over to my Political forum at TFL....I may let you live
wink.gif

http://www.thefiringline.com/ubbcgi/Ultimate.cgi
 
Though we have a "Politics" forum that's intended for Second Amendment discussions and that sort of thing, I'll chime in here anyway.

I find it odd that anyone would argue that the Second Amendment, unlike all other portions of the Bill of Rights, imposes no limitation on the powers and authority of government at any level. Yet that is what people are arguing when they claim it is only there to authorized National Guard units.

On the other hand, the Second Amendment does invite government at some level to regulate the militia, so presumably anyone who asserts a right to keep and bear arms must also admit to an obligation to follow militia regulations, if any. But it clearly prohibits the government from disarming the public.

By the way, there is, at least as of a few years ago, one among the first ten amendments of the US Constitution which has never been the subject of a Supreme Court case. Anybody know what it is?


------------------
- JKM
www.chaicutlery.com
 
I won't bore you with quotations from the Federalist Papers, or from any number of the founding fathers who created the Bill of Rights, who later wrote in their personal correspondences concerning the citizens' rights to arm themselves. I will only quote George Mason, who when asked who the militia was, replied: "Who are the militia? With the exception of a few public officials, it is the entire of the citizenry."

Go read the United States Code, Title 10, Chapter 13. Go read the statutes of the state in which you live. More than likely, your state statutes contain nearly the same language as the USC concerning the militia.
More than likely, most members of this forum belong to the militia. If you happen to be an honorably discharged veteran, you are in the militia until age 65. Yes, the national guard is a militia. The organized militia, whom the founding fathers considered to be a standing army. Yes, We the People, are a militia, the unorganized militia, diametrically opposed to the standing army. Go read the USC Title 10, Chapter 13, and tell me why the National Firearms Act of 1935, the Gun Control Act of 1968, and the various gun control provisions in the sundry crime and drug bills are not unconstitutional. And regarding concealed carry, isn't exacting a fee for what is a right also unconstitutional?

Do I propose indiscriminant use of firearms? Do I propose illegal activities using firearms? Of course not. But I do advocate liberty. So do many others. Recently, a thread appeared in the forums entitled "cops." Well, I know of one cop. He is also in his state's national guard. When the crap hits the fan, he and "most" of his company plan on relieving the armory of its weapons, and living up to the oath of office they took. They will not act against civilians.
I don't know how in-touch officers are, but from what I've heard, the enlisted personnel and NCOs know bull**** when they hear it. What if they called up the reserves and nobody came?
 
Wow, believe it or not I just posted something on this very subject not 15 minutes ago, before I saw this thread.
Here goes the post:

Much as I'd like to vent my own feelings about this, I belive someone said it best, oh, about 200 years ago.
"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."

Okay, so the emphasis on bear was mine. But instead of consulting court cases and goodness knows what else, I tried consulting a plain old dictionary for the definition of the term "militia" and "arms" (Webster's New Dictionary and Thesaurus, published 1990, the dictionary I've been using since high school), and guess what?

A militia is "an army composed of CIVILIANS called out in time of EMERGENCY."

An "arm" is simply a weapon. In 1776, this would consist of a knife and a flintlock rifle/pistol. Today, an "armed" man could be anything from a citizen carrying a Swiss Army Knife to an M-1 tank. The main distinction lies with the intention of him who bears the weapon, not with the inanimate weapon itself.

So, if the 2nd ammendment really only supports the right of the government to arm itself in support of the people, I guess the 1st ammendment (free speach) just supports the right of the government to speak on behalf of the people, right?

I guess the whole point of this is, as a United States citizen, whether you're a medic or an (ahem) accountant, you have a RIGHT to bear any ARM you see fit to bear. No matter what any security guard or politcian tells you, you don't need to apologize for the rights our forefathers gave to us.

Ryan Meyering



[This message has been edited by Ryan Meyering (edited 21 May 1999).]
 
James K. Mattis wrote:

By the way, there is, at least as of a few years ago, one among the first ten amendments of the US Constitution which has never been the subject of a Supreme Court case. Anybody know what it is?
Click to expand...

I can't say I know in the sense of having done an exhaustive search of that sort of thing myself, but just as a WAG
wink.gif
, I would say Amendment IX:

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Click to expand...

This is, of course, one that should have been invoked in Roe v. Wade and suchlike cases, but instead the court chose to uphold the right to abortions based on a hitherto unkown "penumbra" from various other sources.


------------------
Paul Neubauer
prn@bsu.edu
 
You wanna know what the 2nd Amendment is for?

Read these:

http://www.tngenweb.usit.com/newspaper/kns001.htm

http://users.netonecom.net/~gwood/TLP/ref/tnrevolt.htm

Now that you have a grounding in this cool little bit of history, read the OFFICIAL Tennessee state website's history page, which contains more details that completely back up the tale. And adds more: keep reading about AFTER the battle, and Al Gore Sr's link to the "rebellion" and a pro-RKBA stance.

http://www.state.tn.us/sos/history/modern.htm

So without question, privately owned semi-auto rifles and handguns are useful in preventing tyrrany right here in the USofA. And Al Gore Jr. personally knows this because his father got his big political boost by allying with civilians that enforced the rule of law with massed gunfire.

Jim March
 
The founding fathers not only didn't like standing armies, they also didn't like having military or paramilitary bodies stationed around their communities. However they were very familiar with the possibility of being assaulted by marauding bands who operated outside of US laws. Indian bands, river pirates, regular pirates, and privateers were still in business off our coasts and on our frontiers. The militia that was needed was on the model of the Minutemen who could be called upon to defend a community on a moments notice. These are the people who were needed to keep and bear arms. Some considered making it mandatory to keep and bear arms, like it is in Switzerland. Where gangs and armed criminals are closer than the police, common civilians are needed to fill a gap. They provide both deterence and remedy to armed agression.
 
So much confusion exists...Back when the 2nd. was written, Tom and the boys were worried about lots of things, with some of that being King George's Army...The Militia, if you use the Liberal definition, would have troops loyal to King George, which is the exact opposite of what the Founding Fathers meant in the 2nd. amendment...The entire gun control "debate" is so full of emotion and crap that hardly anyone is willing to listen to logic and the historical facts...
BTW...i just ran across a blurb about Australia...Approximately one year after the Govt-mandated gun buy back program, the murder rate has increased by 44%...I wonder why...

--dan
 
From: Ivan 5-21-99 810PM EDT One of my favorite bumper stickers says it all about the Second Amendment: Free men own Guns ,Slaves dont. It is quite possible that the American people will soon have to make one of the greatest, if not the greatest decision, in American History. Turn your guns in or else! Free men or slaves. It is your choice. Ivan
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top