Abandoning the Second Amendment

[cz75bdneos22]

Then we can certainly take anything you profess as a matter of principle with a grain of salt. If I were you, and I am not, I would do one of two things before I continued with any discussion:

I would either rectify all of those hypocrisies and live according to my beliefs

or

I would reconcile my beliefs with how I live my life and make honest decisions as to the validity of the statements above.

I was trying to make a point!
thanks to all that participated...

 

[NineseveN]

I was trying to make a point!
thanks to all that participated...

Oh I think you made one indeed, perhaps not the one that you intended to, but nothing in life comes for free.

 

[griz]

From cz75bdneos22:

one other thing let's separate philposohy from action..what i believe (Philosophy) has nothing to do with what i do (activism).....

I believe in God. yet, I don't live through Him.

so, what was the point?

Have you ever considered a career in comedy? You could make a fortune.

 

[CrazyIrishman]

What is soo hard to understand,especially the last half of it?

"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. "


I believe that the founding fathers knew exactly what they were trying to get across to people just as its worded. I'm hardly a scholar but I do fail to see what all of the confusion is about.

The only apparent difficulty I have noticed is trying to cut through all of the BS and smokescreens that the politicians and groups like the Brady Bunch try to confuse us with.

 

[fantacmet]

Horg, you have my deepest and sincerest respect. Not to mash on any foreigner from ANYWHERE, but it is truly a sad state of affairs when someone who doesn't even live in our country, and who lives under a completely different type of governing body understands our constitution better then 95% of citizens here do. The very statement, "The Constitutional Amendments seem to me, primarily a list of limits imposed on your Federal Government, to preserve freedoms and freedom." proves this.

KUDO'S TO YOU!!!!

Rev. Michael

 

[horge]

Kudos most appreciated, Rev. Michael.

 

[Kentak]

To me, the Second Amendment is nice to have, but not central to the RKBA. That comes from the almost universally recognized human right of self-defense. If you have that right, you have to be granted an effective means of self-defense.

K

 

[horge]

To me, the Second Amendment is nice to have, but not central to the RKBA. That comes from the almost universally recognized human right of self-defense. If you have that right, you have to be granted an effective means of self-defense.

K

Indeed.
The Second Amendment cannot be central to a natural RKBA.
I believe my point was that it is the other way around:
A separate and independent RKBA is central to the Second Amendment.

 

[The Real Hawkeye]

To me, the Second Amendment is nice to have, but not central to the RKBA. That comes from the almost universally recognized human right of self-defense. If you have that right, you have to be granted an effective means of self-defense.

K

I hope you meant to say that you have to be permitted an effective means of self-defense, rather than granted. If you have a right to be granted something, that means that I have an obligation to provide you with one, which I don't. Just wanted to clarify that. You have to acquire your own arms. No one has to grant them to you.

 

[Kentak]

Real Hawkeye...

Of course, I agree with you. Poor choice of words on my part. I should have said, if one has the right of self-defense, then the right to an effective means of self-defense would be a corollary.

K

 

[Meplat]

I was trying to make a point!
thanks to all that participated...

No problem dood. Now fire your crack pipe up, I think your ember's grown cold.

 

[TequilaMockingbird]

I've been arguing with a guy in one of my classes over interpretations of the COnstitution. He can't get past the Militia clause and thinks the 2nd does not convey an individual right.

Dannyboy, show him this.

 

[Aguila Blanca]

Also show him this:

http://www.guncite.com/journals/senrpt/senrpt.html

It's a long read, but the meat is on the last page.

Then there's the more recent AG's report:

http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/secondamendment2.htm

An even longer read, but the Introduction itself states that the Dept of Justice views the 2nd Amendment as securing an individual right to keep and bear arms.

 

[k_semler]

@horge:

You have posted absolutly nothing I disagree with. If I were to write the 2nd today, (in modern language), it would read as follows:

As it is nessecary for an armed population to exist to throw off oppressive actions and regimes, It shall be the duty of all free citizens to be at all times armed, and prepared to act should assistance become nessceary in the execution of any lawful action. Armed defence shall not be prohibited under any circumstance, but this shall not include defence in the act of commission of a violent felony.

 

[Molon Labe]

To me, the Second Amendment is nice to have, but not central to the RKBA. That comes from the almost universally recognized human right of self-defense.

+1.

Pro-gunners should never use the 2nd Amendment to "prove" they have a right to keep and bear arms. We had this right before the Constitution was ratified, and we will have this right after the Constitution is sent through the paper shredder.

It's a bit ironic, but our right to keep and bear arms will be exercised to the fullest after the disappearance of the 2nd Amendment...

 

[hugh damright]

He can't get past the Militia clause and thinks the 2nd does not convey an individual right.

I think you're both right ... I don't believe the 2nd conveys an individual right, I believe it is intended only to limit the feds ... but regardless of the 2nd, it is well established that the we have federal protection of the individual RKBA as it relates to militia.

As it is nessecary for an armed population to exist to throw off oppressive actions and regimes, It shall be the duty of all free citizens to be at all times armed

I don't follow ... I understand the idea that free government i.e. majority rule requires an armed majority ... but I do not understand why majority rule requires that every Citizen be armed at all times .... quite the contrary, I think if a people have free government then it is up to them to decide what gun laws they want (as long as they do not go so far as to disarm the majority and thus pave a road to monarchy).

 

[The Real Hawkeye]

I don't follow ... I understand the idea that free government i.e. majority rule requires an armed majority ... but I do not understand why majority rule requires that every Citizen be armed at all times .... quite the contrary, I think if a people have free government then it is up to them to decide what gun laws they want (as long as they do not go so far as to disarm the majority and thus pave a road to monarchy).

Hugh, you seem too generally knowledgeable for me to believe that you actually think we were established as a national democracy. We were established as a Constitutional Republic. The only way liberty is preserved is with strictly limited government. Democracy (i.e., unlimited government under the control of the majority) is the death knell to liberty, not its preservative. The Continental Army did not sacrifice what it did to establish a national democracy.

The Federal Government is strictly limited to external matters of national concern, while the State governments were to handle all things effecting the people directly. The reason for this was that the Founders trusted the people to limit their State governments with their own Constitutions, not so they could establish a dozen little unlimited governments under the rule of the local majority. Yes, the State governments were intended to be more responsive to the will of their citizens, but not democracies. Those were anathema to the Founders.

 

[hugh damright]

Hugh, you seem too generally knowledgeable for me to believe that you actually think we were established as a national democracy. We were established as a Constitutional Republic.

Actually, I believe we are fifty Constituted Republics or "free States". I do not mean to say that a free State is a mobocracy ... I believe the intent is rule of law, not rule by the arbitrary will of a King or an aristocracy, nor rule by the arbitrary will of the majority.

But in a free State, with rule of law, the laws must be consented to by the majority or by their representatives. In a free State, all men being equal, sovereignty resides in a majority. And it was to ensure this majority rule, this collective right of a people to control their own State, that it was declared that a standing army is dangerous to liberty, and that the proper defense of a free State is the people themselves, trained to arms, and organized into well regulated militia.

The reason for this was that the Founders trusted the people to limit their State governments with their own Constitutions, not so they could establish a dozen little unlimited governments under the rule of the local majority.

Well now wait a minute .... the States came first. The "thirteen little unlimited governments under the rule of the local majority" were already established, and the US Constitution is a compact between them. What you call "little unlimited governments under the rule of the local majority" ... I think that's what the Declaration of Independence called "free and independent States" ... and what the Second Amendment means by "free State".

 

[The Real Hawkeye]

Well now wait a minute .... the States came first. The "thirteen little unlimited governments under the rule of the local majority" were already established, and the US Constitution is a compact between them. What you call "little unlimited governments under the rule of the local majority" ... I think that's what the Declaration of Independence called "free and independent States" ... and what the Second Amendment means by "free State".

Naturally, the States were there first. But did you think the Founders had nothing to do with the States prior to the ratification of the 1789 US Constitution? Their philosophy is what led to the revolution in the first place, which in turn led to the establishment of 13 REPUBLICS, not unlimited states under the total rule of the mob. That idea was anathema to them at just about any level.

That said, the US Constitution not only envisioned that States would be Republics (and not unlimited governments under the absolute rule of the majority), but required it in plain language. States are REQUIRED by the US Constitution to provide their citizens with a REPUBLICAN form of government, i.e., NOT DEMOCRACIES, which are the death of republics.

 

[Baron Holbach4]

Pro-gunners should never use the 2nd Amendment to "prove" they have a right to keep and bear arms. We had this right before the Constitution was ratified, and we will have this right after the Constitution is sent through the paper shredder.

It's a bit ironic, but our right to keep and bear arms will be exercised to the fullest after the disappearance of the 2nd Amendment...

Molon Labe, this too is how I see it.

Also, The Real Hawkeye is correct when he says our form of government is a constitutional republic, not a democracy. Once the last vestige of a republic -- i.e., electoral college -- is dismantled, this country will be on the slippery slope toward absolute democracy/mobocracy/dictatorship by the majority.

 

[hugh damright]

the US Constitution not only envisioned that States would be Republics (and not unlimited governments under the absolute rule of the majority), but required it in plain language. States are REQUIRED by the US Constitution to provide their citizens with a REPUBLICAN form of government, i.e., NOT DEMOCRACIES, which are the death of republics.

The Constitution guarantees each State a republican form of government, and that is a guarantee that the majority of each State will remain in control of that State. A republican form of government is a popular or representative form of government.

Again, I do not mean to say that the majority rules directly as if a mobocracy, but rather that in a free State the sovereign or ultimate authority is the majority. It is the most fundamental principle of republican government that the majority ratifies a Constitution, amends it, elects representatives, recalls them ... and that the majority has a right to alter or to abolish government, which requires that the majority control the arms.

Free government is not direct rule by the majority, it is rule by laws consented to by the majority or by their representatives.

 

[The Real Hawkeye]

Hugh, my point is that republics have, as opposed to democracies, constitutions which define and limit the powers of government, and declare all other powers beyond the scope of government. They are not, in other words, totalitarian by nature, whereas democracies are, by nature, totalitarian. Yes, the people, through their representatives, shape the form of the republic's constitution, but men do not rule in a republic, but rather the law, and the highest law is the constitution. This is all contrary to democracy. You cannot assert on the one hand that you mean to say "democracy," but not mob rule. That's what democracy is. Republics are representative, not democratic. Or, at the very least it is accurate to say that democratic republics rapidly and invariably descend into non-republican tyrannies of their majorities.