The Second Amendment is now meaningless....

This is the first thread I've started, so I hope I don't get out of line. Actually, controversy is what makes boards like these fun to me, so I'm really hoping not to get booted for a strong and controversial view I hold.

I was reading the "Mike Malloy says to buy a gun" thread below, and found many of the posts to be interesting. The moral of the thread to me is "buy a gun because we're going to have to revolt against these thugs who think they rule by divine right".

I think this is precisely the reason the 2nd Amendment is in the Constitution, specifically based on the fact that the writers of the 2nd Amendment had just revolted and overthrown their government.

The problem now is "they" have missiles, helicoptors, spy satellites, and F-16s. If "we" were to arm ourselves in the spirit of the 2nd Amendment, "we" would have to have these also. And that is impossible.

So, I wish we could stop piddling around with the 2nd Amendment and STOP THE VIOLENCE. It's too bad it's such and election killer.

If you actually READ the second amendment, you'll find it refers to well regulated state militias...not whether an individual yokel can have a gun. And the courtsd have said that consistently throughout US history.

The notion that the gun fetish of some neurotics is constitutionally protected is a LIE by folks like John AshKKKroft,, Trent Lott, Tom DeLay, Orrin Hatch, Ted Nugent, etc....

That is all.

referred to all male citizens between certain ages, maybe 21 and 50, not the National Guard, which did not exist. Learn som history! The 2nd amendment was not put into the Constitution to guarantee hunting rights, or competitive shooting. And it is an individual right. It seems to me that if we, as progrerssives, are to hold the constitution in high regard, then we should hold it ALL in high regard, not just the points taht agree with our current positions. Otherwise, we are as hypocritical as, say, Rush Limbaugh.

:hi:

you could explain your complaint a little more fully. And, consider, do two wrongs make a right?

all the other gun-nuts!

...I don't recall them issueing an order with it telling everyone to hand in their guns. And since that position has stood "consistently throughout US history", there is at least an implicit right to private gun ownership that is as strong as other rights that are implicit but not explicitly stated (like the right to privacy, etc.).

They fought for a reason, and the FF's built upon that to create a life for individuals that is safe, happy and prosperous. A person cant feel safe if the things that may make them feel safe, or that can help them protect themselves are restricted or taken away.

The rights guaranteed to US civilians by the constitution are on the individual level. I don’t need John AshKKKroft,, Trent Lott, Tom DeLay, Orrin Hatch, Ted Nugent, etc. to see that.

it would be silly to try to do it via a civil war. It would be much wiser to do it in cooperation with other countries that hate the US. I am against violence, so think guns are problems. I would prefer to use civil disobedience, education, protests, and other non-violent methods. If those don't work, then so be it. I plan to move to another country soon because I don't believe anything will work and the US is circling the drain.

so banning handguns would put an end to the problem of violence in this country?

Just like banning certain narcotics put an end to the "drug problem"? No, it exacerbated the problem, artificially inflating the price of drugs and creating a black market which used violence to protect territorial markets. Are you ready for a "War on Guns" to be tacked onto the dismal failure that is the "War on Drugs".

Moreover, I would argue that the war on drugs, rather than the 2nd amendment, is a primary cause of gun violence in this nation.
Prohibition of any kind is never the answer for any problem. The problem of gun violence in this country stems from economic conditions which are a result of the disparity between the masses of the poor and the few rich.

little brother or playmate with their daddy's gun? More people are killed and injured in accidental shootings than crime related by a long shot. Sensible saftey regulations should not be such a horrible idea.

There are normally fewer than a thousand lethal accidental shooings in the US annually according to DoJ, out of some 300,000,000 guns in this country.

Apples and oranges.

for every lethal shooting, there are many more non-lethal shootings. We don't have figures for non-lethal shootings from DoJ, but we do for lethal shootings. There were something like 10,000 homicides in 2001, and fewer than 1000 accidental gun-related deaths.

If the proportion stays the same (as it should, as accidental shootings are no more likely to be more or less lethal than intentional shootings) it stands to reason that there's a greater than 10:1 ratio between deliberate woundings and accidental woundings, as there's a greater than 10:1 ratio between homicides and accidental gun deaths.

I mean, shit, weed causes no deaths...shouldn't it be legal now?

Guns are great for the people who use them for skeet, aluminum cans, and other backyard projects. They're not some panacea of freedom. And in this democracy, if we have to use guns to influence the government, well then this country failed miserably anyway.

Really?

Studies have shown that smoking it has similar effects to that of cigarettes. I'd imagine taking it in infusion or eating the solid may be deliterious on the GI tract, liver and kidneys...but I've not come across any studies on the effects other than through smoking so this is speculation.


Cigarettes are certainly contributary factors in many deaths from cancer and other lung diseases. It stands to reason weed, as it shares many of the same properties as tobacco, would have a similar toll on the smoker.

They are not a horrible idea, but how do you enforce them? I mean, if I was a father and decided to have a loaded gun laying around, how do you prevent my kid from getting it? You can't. You can only punish me after something happens that makes it apparent to you.

Passing laws that make you feel good about the situation but does nothing about it is foolish.

You can't stop someone from breaking the law. You can punish them after the fact and that punishment is supposed to be a deterrent to others to not commit that crime. After a few negligent fathers spend some time or money for allowing their children access to their guns people might start thinking twice about leaving their guns lying around.

just when I thought that all DU'ers agreed that the Patriot Act is the beginning of the end of our constitution, somebody suggests that we should have the government checking our homes to ensure that guns are properly stored and locked. Is that what they are suggesting? that would be the only way to ensure the citizens are complying with the regulations.

You are wrong both on your "facts" and on your interpretation.

1) The 2nd Amendment isn't the only part of the Constitution that mentions the "well-regulated militia". If you avoided the NRA's selective reading of the Constitution, and read ALL militia-related Constitutional references, you'd see that the Constitution clearly states that one of the functions of the "well-regulated militia" is it's use to PUT DOWN INSURRECTIONS AND REBELLIONS, and not to enable them.

Doesn't it seem odd to you that the Framers, who you claim wanted to enable insurrections and rebellions, enabled the creation of a well-regulated militia and gave it the task of ending insurrections and rebellions?

2) The Constitution was NOT, as you inaccurately claim, written shortly after the Framers "had just revolted and overthrown their government". American independence had been won years before. What was foremost in their minds was the Shay's Rebellion and the dangers of "unbridled democracy" and the "tyranny of the majority" it represented. That's why they created a Constitution that gave the Federal govt INCREASED powers, and awfully strange tactic for a group that was supposedly motivated by a fear of an oppresive govt.

3) The Supreme Court has NEVER found that the RTKBA is based on the need of The People to be able to rebel. The Constitution provides reasonable means for The People to change their govt and the Constitution itself. The former we call "elections", and the latter we call "constitutional amendments". Saying the the people need guns to protect themselves from tyranny is an implicit condemnation of inability of the democratic process' ability to protect us.

Well stated.

That some here support the broadest interpretation of all rights except this one?

too bad you don't understand what it means...

you're only proving what a bunch of liars the founders of this country were, then blindly support the resulting government...you're a case!

... one of the functions of the "well-regulated militia" is it's use to PUT DOWN INSURRECTIONS AND REBELLIONS, and not to enable them.

... would be because

Article II

Section 2. The President shall be commander in chief ... of the militia of the several states, when called into the actual service of the United States ...

... and

Section 8. 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; ...

eh?


I'll bet that you scratch your head with me at the idea that these guys -- who had just revoted against a government that they had not elected and in which they did not have representation -- wanted to be sure -- after making provision that that government henceforth would be "of, by and for" the people whose right to elect that government might not be infringed -- that said elected government could legitimately be overthrown on the whim of, well, whomever.


I'd never heard of Shays' Rebellion, so I looked it up.
http://www.sjchs-history.org/Shays.html

It seems, from the little I've glanced at, that the rebels may indeed have had justice on their side --

The American Revolution ended in 1783, but the young republic it created faced a difficult time. Nowhere was this more evident than to the farmers of Western Massachusetts. A severe economic depression forced people unable to pay their debts first into court, then into jail. These troubles were viewed as arising from the mercantile elite of Eastern Massachusetts, especially Boston, who demanded hard currency to pay foreign creditors. The farmers of Western Massachusetts, after years of frustration, reacted with an armed uprising that lasted for six months at the end of 1786 and start of 1787.

... but nope, they didn't have the US constitution there.


Here's a bit I find quite interesting, in light of that oft-cited T. Jefferson quip (see post 44 here) about the tree of liberty needing to be nurtured by the blood of patriots every twenty years or so:

Thomas Jefferson, Letter to James Madison, from Paris, Jan. 30, 1787

"I hold it that a little rebellion now and then is a good thing, and as necessary in the political world as storms in the physical. Unsuccessful rebellions, indeed, generally establish the encroachments on the rights of the people which have produced them. An observation of this truth should render honest republican governors so mild in their punishment of rebellions as not to discourage them too much. It is a medicine necessary for the sound health of the government."

It just strikes me that the blood that Jefferson was recommended being spilt wasn't by people trying to overthrow the elected government of his country. It strikes me that it was blood being spilt to defend the existence of that country as a "republic", with a representative elected government, and all that.

I mean, Jefferson wasn't actually saying that Shays and his rebels should have been allowed to oust the gummint by force, was he?

Chief Justice William Cushing, Supreme Judicial Court, in the Hampshire Gazette, June 6, 1787

"<I fear> evil minded persons, leaders of the insurgents ... <waging war> against the Commonwealth, to bring the whole government and all the good people of this state, if not continent, under absolute command and subjugation to one or two ignorant, unprincipled, bankrupt, desperate individuals."

Bad luck for everybody that some "ignorant, unprincipled, bankrupt, desperate individuals" managed to get themselves elected ... but damned if I see how a few more of them with guns are the solution to the problem.

I might indeed think that a time could come when some US government needed to be overthrown by force, if its elected governments continue to get that way by the kind of anti-democratic means, the kind of deceit and demagoguery, that got the present one there.

But I'd never be so deceitful and demagoguish myself as to assert that the US constitution offered authority for doing that. Of course, I don't regard the US constitution as the supreme arbiter of what is right and wrong in this world ...

.

You are deeply interested in national and international politics. You write letters to the editors, post messages on internet bulletin boards, attend rallies, you read certain books and magazines and publicly speak out against the adninistration and its policies...........Your sitting at home and you hear a knock at the door. You open it up and there are 4 FBI agents waiting to arrest you. Do you go quietly or turn around and hunt for your 9mm handgun, 12 gauge shotgun, fill in the blank _______ type of gun?

What good has the 2nd amendment done you?

You are sitting at home on your computer and you hear some yelling outside your door. You look out the window and see a half dozen people who are yelling Traitor and Liberal and hang the Bastard. You go to call the police and get a busy signal. Next comes a hammering at your door and the yelling increases. What do you do next? I get my 12 gauge shotgun, 9mm handgun, fill in the blank_______ type of gun and protect my self and my family.

I understand your analogy but it doesn't fit the right-wing nutcase argument for owning a gun.....protection against tyranical gov't.

Interesting how these same right-wing gun-nuts argue in favor of owning a gun to prevent tyranical gov't are the same goobers swallowing whole, the propaganda they are fed from the same gov't they look upon with suspicion.

At a time in our nations history when lies so freely fly in the face of the evidence right before there very eyes, these are the same people lining up behind what I would consider tyranical gov't. Go figure.

there's not just one "government approved" reason to own a gun....it's not an "all or nothing" proposition.

so we need to argue why a left-winger feels the need for the 2nd ammendment not the right-wingers who never made much sense to me anyway. Tailor your argument to your audience.

The various legal distortions surrounding it ignore the historical realities of the time, and also ignore *who* these folks were. They were largely Englishmen who were descendents of OTHER Englishmen who survived the English civil war between King Charles and Cromwell; during that war, you were not allowed to possess a weapon unless you took an oath of loyalty.

The 2nd amendment was not some poorly-written clause inserted as an afterthought to explain what the need for militias; it was inserted deliberately to protect an *individual right* to own a GUN.

Sheesh!

In fact, the ONLY time an individual right to own a gun came up was at the Massachusetts ratifying convention...and it was promptly voted DOWN.

The "gun rights" crowd produces a doctored quote by "Founding Father" George Mason to back its cclaim...but the quote is a fabrication. Never heard of "Founding Father" George Mason? There's a reason...he voted AGAINST the Constitution, which makes his opinion of its contents somewhat worthless to those who support the Constitution.

The 13 states raised money to buy guns for their own militias....and Eli Whitney and others built factories to sell them in bulk.

any revisionism on the subject comes out of AshKKKroft and the NRA.

"He became an active and articulate opponent of the U.S. Constitution, largely because he felt it vested too much ill-defined power in the national government. He refused to sign the document and voted against it in the Virginia Ratifying Convention of 1788."

http://lorton.net/History/Gunston.html

Yeah, THERE's the guy to trust on the meaning of the Constitution...

:eyes: "individual right to own a gun" I want your drugs!

there is no individual right to own a gun, but there is a recognized collective one. Not that I'm incredibly worried about original intent given that half the founders supported the institution of slavery, but the earlier point made here about the US lacking a standing army is true. Communities needed to defend themselves from abusive power, BUT the right was w/that group (notice the word people used rather than persons).

One major fact that gives me pause from being anti-gun outright is the fact that Black communities in the South during Reconstruction very much needed to arm themselves to survive an era that saw the rise of the KKK. The Black Panthers are another example. So it isn't ridiculous to think that guns don't serve some other purpose other than hunting and sport. On the other hand, I don't think that means my neighbor should have the right to have a mini-arsenal (without my knowledge mind you) that he could use to quickly murder the entire neighborhood before anybody could stop them. At the very least, I want some kind of notice so I can make sure I return things I borrow from him in a timely fashion!

Politically and culturally, I understand that guns are part of America, but that doesn't mean we can't allow our government to keep track of them (like we do w/drivers) and heavily restrict those that wish to own weapons of special lethality (beyond handguns, hunting rifles, antiques, and shotguns). Does that sound so crazy?

"They were largely Englishmen who were descendents of OTHER Englishmen who survived the English civil war between King Charles and Cromwell; during that war, you were not allowed to possess a weapon unless you took an oath of loyalty.

The Englishmen from whom they were descended won the English Civil War and took over the running of the country. THEY were more brutal than the monarchy (in their puritanical ways, banning Christmas and the like), and were themselves overthrown and had to flee to the New World.

As far as the not owning a gun without swearing an oath of loyalty... Cromwell's puritanical parliamentarian forces managed to possess all kinds of weapons without showing any loyalty to the throne.

Of COURSE they didn't swear a loyalty oath and possessed weapons! That's ALSO why they wrote the 2nd Amendment the way they did-- to protect an *individual* right.

Nuff said.

My guns are all legal, registered, etc., and I use them in a lawful manner; don't be so foolish as to try to tell me the 2nd amendment doesn't recognize my personal right to 'keep and bear' them! :thumbsup:

Where do you live?

I have a bunch of guns, none of which is registered, except with my insurance company.

And I have 'the paper' on every one I own. :)

Forget that...

The founders needed to make sure the states had a way to defend themselves from the potential excesses of the federal government. The militias were commanded by the congress while the federal military responded to the president. It was just another part of the checks and balances.

The NRA always forgets the first part of the shortest ammendment. For the purposes of maintaining a well regulated militia.... This is what the ammendment is about. Its the heart of the ammendment.

The notion of a private citizen owning a gun has nothing to do with the 2nd. It is a property rights issue and as the Supreme court has repeatedly shown the government is well within its reach ot regulate or even ban certain types of guns and weapons. To interpret the 2nd as the NRA would like it would imply that anyone can own a nuke or any sort of WMD they so chose. As the NRA only seems to see that the right to own arms is not to be restricted.

along with all other 9 amendments, exist to put onto paper, rights that the government cannot grant to people, but can only protect.

The government does not allow you to practice your first amendment rights, but they can protect them.

The second amendment exists to acknowledge the fact that all human beings have the right to self defense, whether it be from a bandit or an overreaching government.

It is there to make sure the Federal government cannot disarm a state. Read it again. Read further and find out specifically what the militia is. It is not a bunch of guys hanging out in the woods shooting profiles of inner city dwellers. The militia is specifically a military body controlled by the congress.

including the second amendment.

:thumbsup:

That would be the same NRA currently in court complaining their COLLECTIVE first amendment rights are being abridged by campaign finance reform....

You're sound like a broken record

And I'm laughing at the NRA's palpably transparent LIE.

The Bill of Rights:

"Let's draft a Bill of Rights. We will make 9 of them individual rights, and just for fun, one of them will be a collective right."

You're off your rocker.

The NRA is wailing that its collective First Amendment rights are being abridged...I suggest you explain to them that they're lying, since I already know it.

if so, how exactly is it a collective right? After all, corporations have first Amendment rights, too...at least the ones MrBenchley doesn't hate...

"After all, corporations have first Amendment rights, too..."
Well, duh!

Otherwise known as "natural persons" under the law.

A corporations rights are rights of a single person. The concept of collective rights does not apply in any sense.

it "survives" off of member contributions. But the corporation is the one being muzzled, not the individual members. I guess you don't know much about the legalities of corporations...why am I not surprised?

"Let's draft a Bill of Rights. We will make 9 of them individual
rights, and just for fun, one of them will be a collective right."

Hey, that's just what we did up here!

We call it a Charter of Rights, and it actually has several collective rights in it -- the aboriginal rights of the First Nations peoples, the education rights of official-language minority communities in the provinces and the rights of those communities to "distinct cultural institutions", the education rights of certain religious minorities in certain provinces. Along with all those individual rights like life, liberty & security of the person, freedom of speech & association etc., yada yada.

There's the *individual* right to vote:

3. Every citizen of Canada has the right to vote in an election of members of the House of Commons or of a legislative assembly and to be qualified for membership therein.

and there's the *collective* right to a democratic system of government:

4. (1) No House of Commons and no legislative assembly shall continue for longer than five years from the date fixed for the return of the writs at a general election of its members.

... right there in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms at the very beginning of the Canadian constitution.

I have no difficulty understanding that your founders & framers were capable of walking and chewing gum at the same time, even if you do.

The people of the US had and has a collective right to security within its borders, as a "free state" and not a colony or subject territory -- a security that the people of the US didn't feel too complacent about at the time that Bill of Rights was written, and a right now recognized by international law but honoured as often in the breach as in the observance back then.

I don't find it odd that your founders & framers might have wanted to stress this right to security, the right of the people of the US to exist as an independent, free state, in their constitution, and make such provisions as looked to them to be necessary for the continued exercise of it.

I'd find it very odd if one of them woke up today and looked at the mess that is being laid at their doorstep and said "yes! that's what we wanted! a country where people are routinely intimidated and injured and killed by people claiming to be the heirs to our social and political values!" And I'm very sure that if they did say that, the next thing out of their mouths would be: "NOT!"

.

Original Message
"But it doesn't address the rights of the people"

You should get a another copy. Every copy I have seen addresses both "the right of the people" and "security of a free state".


"can not disarm a state"
If ,as you say, the militia is a military body controlled by the congress, How would your version of the second amendment prevent congress from disarming a state, since only the militia(controlled by the congress) would be armed. Who would defend a state if congress
directed the military body known as the militia to turn in their weapons?

You might begin by reading US vs. Miller for a good definition of the term "militia" and who was to keep arms. (hint; it wasn't a state) Read the milita acts of the states cited in Miller and also the US Militia Act of 1792.

You might also read the congressional ratification debates to find out who was to bear arms (Hint: again, it was not a state)

:thumbsup:

....then EVERY gun control law in the country would be unconstitutional.

You'd think at least ONE gun loony somewhere would sue some time...

Wonder why they don't...

ANSWER: That's the sheerest hooey.

"read the congressional ratification debates"
Gee, in Massachusetts, it was proposed ""The Constitution shall never be construed to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms."
And how did the delegates vote? They voted to reject that interpretation.

(quote)
Gee, in Massachusetts, it was proposed "The Constitution shall never be construed to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms."
And how did the delegates vote? They voted to reject that interpretation."
(end quote)


1) "Gee, in Massachusetts..." is not "congressional ratification" debates on the bill of rights, instead you are citing from the state ratifying convention on the US Constitution. Was this sleight of hand,or honest mistake?

2) There were NO amendments approved during the ratification of the US consitution. Though many were proposed (including the familiar fredoms of speech, religion, and the press) none were accepted because that would have sent the Constitution back to be approved once again by those states which had already ratified the unamended version.

3) Did anyone during any of the ratification debates (federal or state, US constitution or Bill of rights) ever mention an exclusively collective right of the people to Keep and Bear arms? (NO)

4) "...every gun control law ...would be unconstitutional" Does the freedom of speech mean that one can say anything one wants? Are there no laws against certain types of speech? Here are just a few examples of speech that is not protected: Hate speech, fraud, perjury, and inciting riot.

5) You'd think at least ONE gun loony somewhere would sue some time...
People have sued on 2nd amendment grounds and continue to sue on 2nd amendment grounds. US vs. Miller for one (decided on the TYPE of weapon, not the status of person. Plus there have been many cases on the US court of appeals.

tools of choice of criminals and law enforcement for self defense. Firearms are also the most effective and efficient choice of arms for law abiding citizens.

A Declaration of the Rights of the Inhabitants of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts the people ratified the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts on June 15, 1780.

QUOTE
Article I. All men are born free and equal, and have certain natural, essential, and unalienable rights; among which may be reckoned the right of enjoying and defending their lives and liberties; that of acquiring, possessing, and protecting property; in fine, that of seeking and obtaining their safety and happiness.
UNQUOTE

In recent years the statement was changed by replacing "men" with "people" where in context "people" means each individual, but self defense is still an "unalienable right".

I promise it won't be from this bandit. :evilgrin:

:evilgrin:

Ha, ha, ha

Warren Burger called the gun rights argument "the subject of one of the greatest pieces of fraud, I repeat the word ‘fraud,' on the American public by special interest groups that I have ever seen in my lifetime.. . ha(s) misled the American people and they, I regret to say, they have had far too much influence on the Congress of the United States than as a citizen I would like to see — and I am a gun man."

if the Second Amendment REALLY gave every American an individual right to keep and bear arms, as the National Rifle Association claims, then EVERY gun control law in the nation would be unconstitutional. Yet the NRA has NEVER sued in any court, anywhere, at any time, to overturn a single gun control law. Nor has the Gun Owners of America (the second largest gun rights group, headed by a loony so racist even Pat Buchanan had to back away in public). Nor has any gun manufacturer anywhere.

Why is that? It's sure not because they're afraid to sue...in fact, the NRA (which also claims the entire Bill of Rights refers ONLY to individual rights) is in court RIGHT NOW to overturn campaign finance laws (with Ken Starr and THERE is an Ace to draw to) on the grounds that its COLLECTIVE right to free speech is being infringed.

but those of us here who are saying that the framers were somehow opposed to the citizens' right to overthrow their government if that government becomes destructive to the citizens of the US really ought to reread the sentence in the Declaration of Independence immediately following the words "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."

There's a reason our education regarding that document stops with those words.

Constitution. What is written in the Declaration is of no concern with the Laws of the Land. It is only telling us why we had to write our own laws. We are discussing the Constitution here and I agree the intent of the Framers was to allow the people to protect themselves from ??????? They did not specify that an oppresive government should not be overthrown and in fact in other writings T Jefferson said the tree of liberty needed to be nurtured by the blood of patriots every twenty years or so.

The GD forum has gone downhill fast since the new 'rules' were implemented.

Lots of interesting threads have been locked.

Lots of interesting discussions have been moved to irrelevant forums.

BRING BACK THE OLD DU GD!!!!!!!!!

primary right. Richard Tuck's book "Natural Rights Theories, Their origin and development" is one of several excellent surveys of the topic.

Starting before the Constitution and Bill of Rights were written.

"I. That all men are born equally free and independent, and have certain natural, inherent and inalienable rights,
amongst which are, the enjoying and defending life and liberty, acquiring, possessing and protecting property,"
"XIII. That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the state;" (Pa Constitution, 28 Sept. 1776)

Today 28 states recognize an individual's "Right to Keep and Bear Arms" (RKBA) for defense of self and state: AL, AR, CO, CT, DE, FL, IN, KY, MI, MS, MO, MT, NE, NV, NH, NM, ND, OK, OR, PA, SD, TX, UT, VT, WA, WV, WI, WY

Five states recognize an individual's RKBA for the "common defense": AR, KS, MA, OH, TN.

Eleven states say RKBA shall not be infringed": AK, GA, HI, ID, IL, LA, ME, NC, RI, SC, VA.

Six states have no RKBA provision: CA, IA, MD, MN, NJ, NY.

It is interesting that CA, IA, and NJ both acknowledge that a citizen has the inalienable right to defend self and property. State Constitutions

CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION
QUOTE
ARTICLE 1 DECLARATION OF RIGHTS
SECTION 1. All people are by nature free and independent and have inalienable rights. Among these are enjoying and defending life and liberty, acquiring, possessing, and protecting property, and pursuing and obtaining safety, happiness, and privacy.
UNQUOTE

IDAHO CONSTITUTION
QUOTE
ARTICLE I DECLARATION OF RIGHTS
SECTION 1. INALIENABLE RIGHTS OF MAN. All men are by nature free and
equal, and have certain inalienable rights, amoung which are enjoying and
defending life and liberty; acquiring, possessing and protecting property;
pursuing happiness and securing safety.
UNQUOTE

NEW JERSEY CONSTITUTION
QUOTE
ARTICLE I RIGHTS AND PRIVILEGES
All persons are by nature free and independent, and have certain natural and unalienable rights, among which are those of enjoying and defending life and liberty, of acquiring, possessing, and protecting property, and of pursuing and obtaining safety and happiness.
UNQUOTE


NINTH AMENDMENT: "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people"

It is a fact that an inalienable right cannot be given away, so that when states ratified the Constitution and Bill of Rights, citizens could not possibly have lost an inalienable right. Another fact is the arms used to “defend self and property” are the same arms used to “defend the state”.

Summary

Government, i.e. SCOTUS, has ruled that federal, state, and local governments are not obligated to protect an individual,

Government is unable to prevent criminals, who do not have inalenable rights, from keeping and bearing firearms,

Government allows law enforcement officers to keep and bear arms for defense against criminals,

Citizens have an inalienable right to defend self and property against criminals, and firearms are the most efficient and effective choice.

IMO, those who would deny a law-abiding citizen the right to keep and bear arms to exercise their inalienable right to defend self and property are really saying that in their warped mind, law-abiding citizens are less important to society than criminals. :shrug:

Many people would say that only a "warped mine" would try to pretend that an assualt weapon is requirted for self-defense...or pretend that making the weapons buyers at a gun show undergo background checks somehow endangers THEIR life or property.

"The moral of the thread to me is 'buy a gun because we're going to have to revolt against these thugs who think they rule by divine right'.

I think this is precisely the reason the 2nd Amendment is in the Constitution, specifically based on the fact that the writers of the 2nd Amendment had just revolted and overthrown their government."

What *I* can't figure out is what those *other* bits in your Constitution must be all about, then.

Article I

Section 2. The House of Representatives shall be composed of members chosen every second year by the people of the several states, ...

Section 4. The times, places and manner of holding elections for Senators and Representatives, ...

Amendment XIV

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; ...

What's all that electing and voting all about, anyhow?

Isn't the deal really like this? --

The government that the people who wrote the 2nd amendment had just overthrown was not elected by them or by the people of the United States.

Wasn't that pretty much the whole point of the exercise? To ELECT yr own government?

The present government of the United States WAS elected by the people of the United States -- according to the rules that the people of the United States have agreed will apply to the election of government. (One of those rules is obviously that contentious issues that arise in the course of elections will be settled by the US Supreme Court in the final instance.)

This is just a teeny tiny bit different from the situation back in 1776, wouldn't we agree? Then, you had a bunch of guys claiming to represent a whole lot of other people, rebelling against a bunch of guys claiming to be entitled to govern them without them having representation in that government. Wasn't that the deal?

Today, you have a constitution and the universal right to vote, and you have a government that the people elected.

So wouldn't that make somebody who decided to revolt against the "thugs" who "think they rule by divine right" (although they're actually "ruling" by constitutional entitlement, it seems to me) just a minority trying to overthrow a government elected by the majority? (Or elected by any other formula that had been agreed to by the people for choosing their government, as the US constitution is agreed to by USAmericans.)

And what would we usually call people like that? "Democrats" (small-d, I'm sure) isn't what springs to my mind.

What the hell is wrong with voting the bastards out?? And if someone can't persuade a majority of the people to do THAT, what earthly legitimacy would any claim they made to be entitled to oust them by force have?

I'm going to be needing a toupée soon, if you keep making me scratch like this.

.

President when the majority of voters voted for Gore?

Last time I looked, the gun lobby was throwing money at pResident Turd with both hands.

"How exactly did shrub become
President when the majority of voters voted for Gore?"

Because that's how it works under your constitution?

Maybe you should read up on it. Things like the Electoral College, and the role of the Supreme Court, and sundry stuff like that.

But here's my question:

If George W. Bush assumed the presidency by wresting it unconstitutionally from its rightful occupant, where the hell are all the freedom-loving patriots and all their muskets?

How could this have been allowed to happen in a country where there are more firearms than there are people old enough to aim and fire them??

And when was the next presidential election cancelled and the right to vote deleted from the constitution? I seem to have missed that bit of news.

.

the gun rights crowd is cheerring lustily that this unelected drunk is in office...and their ONLY complaint is that he isn't crazy enough to suit them.

.. What a dedicated group of people with rifles can do.

Also, what makes you so sure that the government would even use the missles/bomb/tanks/f-16s. It seems more likely they'd use normal police weaponry, at least at first. Only instance I can remember of a government using miltary weaponry on it's populace was China at Tiananmen square.

Oh, and waco.. ;)

Even then, it's easy enough for a rifleman to take a tank out of operation, just snipe the commander when he pokes his head out of the hatch. Granted, jets and missles are harder for normal infantry to deal with, but you can't use jets and missles to target guerilla fighters (especially if they are dispersed among the population).

It's not like the government could just bomb us, you have to have infantry on the ground to 'own' it, and that would be where guerillas have the advantage..

How many cops was it Koresh and his nutcases shot?

The whole situation down there should have been handled a lot differently though, but I don't feel like discussing it here, as it is not on topic.

Maybe too much thought, at that.

That's all right, you've got lots of company among the radical RKBA'ers who hang out here. Lots of fantasizing about another civil war as a means of proving all of us Gun Control Wussies wrong about the Second Amendment.....

a member of the RKBA crowd goes off the deep end and shoots a postman or something...

postman you had to worry about. :)

If there is ever another civil war in the US, it will be horrible for not only the US, but for the entire world. That doesn't mean it won't ever happen though, and I'm 100% sure that I want the civilians of the USA to be armed and ready..

You can't just ignore things because they aren't pleasant, because if and when they happen, you'll be wishing you had thought about them, and planned for them.

Well, Are there any states that have active militias?

Or is that the police?

and those units in the 13 colonies trace their existence right back to the originals with pride.

There's also the "unorganized" and "insane" militias, such as the Michigan Militia, the Orange County Corps, etc.

the National Guard isn't considered a militia but thanks for playing "What's my Racist Gun Control Fantasy"!

mi·li·tia (n.)

1. An army composed of ordinary citizens rather than professional soldiers.

2. The whole body of physically fit civilians eligible by law for military service.

Went to New Yorks National Guard. They seem to say that they are a state miltia with the commander in chief being the Governer, but that the President can overrule the Governer.

http://www.dmna.state.ny.us/dmna.html

Kinda takes the teeth out of the protecting the states from the Federal Gov't!

NEW YORK GUARD

Note the "New York Guard" is not the "New York National Guard".

"Carved into the walkway is a roll call of officers of the east regiment of Mass Bay Colony Militia that eventually became today's Massachusetts National Guard. "


http://www.ngb.army.mil/onguard/31/11/pg15.asp

"The National Guard is the oldest military organization in the United States whose lineage of 357 years of service can be traced back to four units in Massachusetts. The 181st Infantry, 182nd Infantry, 101st Field Artillery and the 101st Engineer Battalion have the oldest lineage in the National Guard and the U.S. Army. They were organized on December 13, 1636 when the General Court of the Massachusetts Bay Colony ordered the organization of the colony's military companies into three regiments, the North, South and East Regiments. The colonists had adopted the English militia system which obligated all males, between the ages of 16 and 60, to possess arms and participate in the defense of the community. The early colonial militia drilled once a week and provided guard details each evening to sound the alarm in case of attack. The growing threat of Pequot Indians to the colony required the militia to be at a high state of readiness.
The Marquis de Lafayette, who commanded a Virginia brigade during America's War of Independence, coined the phrase "Garde Nationale" for his French Revolutionary Army during the French Revolution in the 1790's. Lafayette popularized the term in the United States, during a return visit in 1824, by applying it to all organized militia units in America. The term immediately began to appear in newspapers and magazines as popular slang for the militia.
The 2nd Battalion, 11th Regiment of Artillery, New York Militia, voted to rename itself the "Battalion of National Guards" in 1824 in tribute to Lafayette's command of the Paris militia. New York, by state statute, adopted the term National Guard for its militia during the Civil War. Many states followed New York's lead after the Civil War by renaming their militias "National Guard." The term was not recognized as the militia's formal title by federal legislation until the 1916 National Defense Act."

http://www.delawarenationalguard.com/history/overviewn.html

"The Maryland Militia, which descended into today’s Maryland National Guard, has existed in various forms since the settling of the colony in 1634.  No matter the time or circumstance, Maryland’s citizen-soldiers have always been prepared to answer the call of their colony, state, or nation."

http://www.mdarngrecruiter.com/history.html