The Reason We Have The Second Amendment

The founding fathers gave us the second amendment because they knew the federal gov't of the United States could not be trusted unless it was literally out-gunned by its citizens.

People are always citing hunting or protecting your family but I never hear this a its reasoning. I'm wondering why.




I forgot to ask what Obama's position on the ruling is (thereby making this thread off topic).

hunting, without mentioning personal defense, it's a huge red flag.

Hunting is great, but that's now WHY we have the 2nd. It's a nice side benefit, since hunting with a knife is difficult. My friend used to do that - hunt wild boar in Hawaii with a knife. That's bad-ass.

You will often hear "why do people need handguns. they aren't for hunting, they are just for killing"

That's gun grabber sign bright red flag

But I've read alot here on DU pointing out that "the Second Amendment is there to secure the other Nine".

Or at least I've been saying it....

And I posted a poll earlier, lot's of support here on DU for #2.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=3523640&mesg_id=3523640

(edited to add poll)

and not one shot was fired by the gun lovers in protest, this is bullshit

That any of the other amendments have become compromised defeats neither the spirit nor the utility of of the concept that "the second amendment may serve to support the remaining nine".

It does not follow. Losing any of the 9 is not evidence of weakness of the second.

Rather, it is evidence of that lack of will among a large group of people to protect their rights.

You seem to be willing to expand that group.

The second amendment and the capacity for citizens to overthrow a tyranny may or may not work in practice. We'd rather never have to find out.

A populace with arms but lacking the will to oppose an oppressive government MIGHT become enslaved.

A populace without arms has surrendered it's ability to oppose such a government, even if it has the will to.

which has command of the most fearsome weapons possible to "shock and awe" us.

Those guns that so many people cling to are like a baby's pacifier--comforting but hardly effective against a helicopter gunship.

Oh, and for those gun nuts lurking around here, I do own a gun.

It's about the stupidest argument for gun ownership I can think of.

I have kept one for a while for a family member.

They are popguns compared to what the feds are rocking now. So, does that make the second amendment obsolete?

Each side owning muskets made sense in 1780.

Unless I get my own M1A1 tank, what's my hunting rifle gonna get me?

Killed.

The ability of the people to rise up and overthrow a despotic government is long gone.

Electios are all we have left (and that's none to reassuring, really).

by locals intent on defending their own.

behind the Second Amendment and I don't even own a gun.

But once we, as a nation, determined that a standing army was a better way to preserve the integrity of our borders, the 2nd Amendment became obsolete.

Now it's just an excuse to imbibe in gun porn.

All it would take to bring down the gooberment would be half the population to meet at midnight in the public squares with pitchforks and torches. A few pop guns wouldn't hurt. Numbers, not firepower.

Hasn't Iraq taught you anything?

Even the best army in the world can't defeat determined guerrilla fighters.

with massive quantities of unguarded high explosvies in the form of anti-tank mines and 500 to 1000 pound bombs, rocket propelled grenades, and a fair supply of SA6 or SA7 missles. Add to this the willingness to regularly sustain hunger, pain, horrific casualties, and unimaginable collateral damage to the places where you live and the people you care for, and the deal becomes nearly workable.

There is no circumstance under which it could ever happen here. Thinking otherwise is simply delusion.

I do not and will not own a gun. I have refused employment where carrying one might be involved.

However, using Iraq, Iran, and North Korea as examples, it seems that possession of nuclear weapons is the threshold you are considering. Iraq had plenty of 20 mm cannons, plenty more 50 mm cannons, howitzers, tanks, surface to surface, and surface to air missiles. They did not give us much pause, nor did they seem to slow us down much in their use.

What a joke, our army can't even take Iraq. What more proof do you need than that?

We couldn't take the guerillas in Viet Nam either.

If it comes down to our people having to use local, loosely formed militia (not to be confused with the Army or National Guard) or to independently defend ourselves against the government, we will succeed. It would be nice to have firearms when it happens, but we'll persevere either way, even if it takes years.

The defeatists who suggest otherwise are really just making it harder for that success to occur.

I'm glad that they don't represent the majority of American voters or of members of DU.

As far as going against the federal government, if all of us, and I mean ALL of us just sat down and did nothing, it would be over soon.

If history is any indicator, it would be bloody and there would be no guarantee of success.

How long would you stay on strike if they killed 1% of those striking with you? 10%? 20%?

And even if you were strong, how strong would those around you be?

of the Second Ammendment is taken directly from the text "A well regulated militia being necessary"

The constitution formed a confederation of previously independent states, each with its own independent army (militia). Many of the States were not altogether sure that the Union would work for them or last particularly long. Some objected heavily to the anti-establishment clause for religion and were barely persuaded to sign on. Patrick Henry and others of the Virginia delegation boycotted sessions over this topic.

"Well regulated militia" had an entirely different meaning as well. "Well regulated" in the context of the day meant well organized and trained in the military arts. They called them "regular" armies. The term persists today.

The point was to allow the Colonies (soon to become States) to maintain their separate armies and defend their territory, should leaving be union become necessary.

I do not think the notion of restricting the right of an individual to own an use a firearm was even a topic considered. The country was still a frontier, encounters with bears, wolves, and hostile parties of indigenous americans were still fairly commonplace. The right of an individual to own a gun was not even in question. The language addresses the right of "the people" (en-masse) to bear arms (en-masse) shall not be infringed (by the newly formed union).

It is not worded as the right of a person to own a weapon. The text addresses the right of "the people" as in "we the people".

I think the document does not speak directly to the individual right, though one can be implied deductively. This is not with intent. I think the individual right to own a firearm was unquestioned and not a subject of controversy sufficient to even bear mentioning. No one then contemplated a time when the state would consider such a restriction. There were slave states and free states, there were states with official established churches and states with religious freedom and tolerance, there were no pro-gun and anti-gun states when the consitution was written.

There simply was not a conflict betweem the states on this issue that had to be resolved by this agreement.

As to the notion that an individual right to bear arms has any role in preventing government tyranny, check out the "shock and awe" videos, then recall that Saddam had an army with weapons vastly more powerful than "the people" in the US are ever allowed to possess. Our limited right to own guns should provide no rational person the notion that this somehow counterbalances US military power. Our rights are expressly limited to assure that this never happens. I think of this as a good thing. We do enough damage with saturday night specials, one can be thankful that bazookas and stinger missles are restricted from purchase.

Our Founding Fathers sweated through a hot summer in Philadelphia in 1787, crafting a new constitution - one primarily designed to centralize power for the propertied interests, while maintaining the state governments as important. The reason our precious Bill of Rights had to be ADDED to the constitution is because a group of radicals threw a fit that there were no sufficient protections by the citizens and the states against the federal government. As a price for final approval of the constitution, the radicals attached the Bill of Rights, and insisted that all states approve the package deal.

All because a small group of radicals balked at being pushing into a constitution without protections for the individuals against the central government, we have our bill of rights.

Historically, the radicals wanted the citizens well armed, and wanted to make certain that their federal government could not take such weapons away from them. THAT is why the second amendment exists. It exists to guarantee individuals their federal government cannot take away their guns.

It was the "second" amendment, because it was second in their concern only to the things mentioned in the first amendment.

The Bill of Rights tell a collective story, and that story can be summed up as this: NEVER AGAIN WILL WE HAVE THESE RIGHTS REMOVED BY OUR FEDERAL GOVERNMENT.

But our guns are nothing compared to their missiles.

Which prevents the government from unlawful search and siezure.

And if you think you can "out gun" the government, then you have bbs for brains.

The "we need to be able to initiate armed rebellion" argument is one of the silliest pro-gun arguments I've seen, because a) you can't, and b) it would be a bad thing if you could.

A democratically elected government should have a monopoly on the use of force.

As for your supposition that a country where private citizens own several hundred million guns doesn't have its government outgunned, apparently you cannot count. Of course the fire power is not the same, but the principle of a heavily armed citizenry IS an effective deterrent to governments that might otherwise too easily forget citizen rights.

Your approach to the issue is to ask what is logical to you, and that's not the standard for judicial review.

If by "outgunned", you mean "less than 50% of the weapons, counting nuclear weapons and pistols both as one weapon, in America, are in the hands of employees of the government" then quite possibly.

If you mean it in a more useful sense - "there is a possibility that any or all civilian groups could bring an amount of firepower comparable to the amount possessed by the government, or possibly win an armed conflict" then clearly not.

That the citizenry is heavily armed has no effect whatsoever on government policy, except in relation to things like crime and punishment - it means that money has to be spent on arming police officers, and more police officers are needed, and they are likely to be more heavy-handed, so it arguably slightly encourages the removal of liberties. But it certainly doesn't in any way, shape or form help protect them.

You're being terrible naive about the role that two hundred million guns among the populace plays in making sure we have never had a fascist takeover of our government.

As demonstrated by the lack of fascist takeovers in e.g. the UK, and the successful fascist takeovers in e.g. Zimbabwe, which is being made much easier by the population being armed.

A heavily-armed populace is more, not less, likely to go fascist; fascism happens because much of the population wants to go fascist, and the rest can't resist because the fascists have guns.

Just like the other amendments in the bill of rights. All protect us from the feds. And frankly, anyone who isn't armed after watching this administration in action is just too trusting.

....by the threat of an aroused and armed public, clearly doesn't have sufficient intelligence to be trusted with firearms. You gun radicals are all talk---if you weren't willing to take up arms against a monsterous, Constitution-shredding regime such as the current one, just when the hell were you planning on doing so?