Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
You've probably heard this. It's listed because this is one of those things about the Second Amendment that many people think is made up. In truth, this is not made up. The Court explains that in order to keep the nation free (“security of a free state”), then the people need arms: “When the able-bodied men of a nation are trained in arms and organized, they are better able to resist tyranny" (p.24-25). The Court states that the Founders noted "that history showed that the way tyrants had eliminated a militia consisting of all the able bodied men was not by banning the militia but simply by taking away the people’s arms, enabling a select militia or standing army to suppress political opponents" (p. 25). At the time of ratification, there was real fear that government could become oppressive: “during the 1788 ratification debates, the fear that the federal government would disarm the people in order to impose rule through a standing army or select militia was pervasive" (p.25). The response to that concern was to codify the citizens' militia right to arms in the Constitution (p. 26).
Prove yourself right.... Or read Memphis's response above.
Memphis's response was partially correct.....
The Second Amendment was also meant as a provision to repel a foreign army invasion
ou may find this one comical, but it's in there. The court notes one of many reasons for the militia to ensure a free state was “it is useful in repelling invasions” (p.24). This provision, like tyranny, isn't an everyday occurring use of the right; more like a once-in-a-century (if that) kind of provision. A popular myth from World War II holds Isoroku Yamamoto, commander-in-chief of the Imperial Japanese navy allegedly said “You cannot invade the mainland United States. There would be a rifle behind every blade of grass.” Although there is no evidence of him saying this, there was concern that Japan might invade during WWII. Japan did invade Alaska, which was a U.S. territory at the time, and even today on the West Coast there are still gun embankments from the era (now mostly parks). The fact is that there are over 310 million firearms in the United States as of 2009, making a foreign invasion success less likely (that, and the U.S. military is arguably the strongest in the world).
The Second Amendment was also meant as a provision to repel a foreign army invasion
ou may find this one comical, but it's in there. The court notes one of many reasons for the militia to ensure a free state was “it is useful in repelling invasions” (p.24). This provision, like tyranny, isn't an everyday occurring use of the right; more like a once-in-a-century (if that) kind of provision. A popular myth from World War II holds Isoroku Yamamoto, commander-in-chief of the Imperial Japanese navy allegedly said “You cannot invade the mainland United States. There would be a rifle behind every blade of grass.” Although there is no evidence of him saying this, there was concern that Japan might invade during WWII. Japan did invade Alaska, which was a U.S. territory at the time, and even today on the West Coast there are still gun embankments from the era (now mostly parks). The fact is that there are over 310 million firearms in the United States as of 2009, making a foreign invasion success less likely (that, and the U.S. military is arguably the strongest in the world).
It was meant to stop tyranny because a standing army is a tool of a tyrannical government.
It was never meant to stop the government itself, thats what voting was for.
But a standing army is needed with modern armies and weapons we have today. The founders couldn't have possibly envisioned an apahce helicopter and cruise missiles, let alone nuclear weapons.
It was never meant for the people to keep the government in line with threat of rebellion.
In the context of the discussion, constitutionality is ultimately decided by the supreme court.
So then what you're actually saying is that in the context of people protecting themselves against a tyrannic government, that we need to refer to one wing of that government to determine whether that government is actually tyrannic?
That's kind of an oxymoron. Tyrants rarely admit their tyranny, and anyone truthfully stating such would be ruthlessly silenced.
In reality however the fluidity of local, state and federal government and the beliefs and perceptions of the people will lead to a determination of whether such a government is tyrannic and if so what the appropriate response should be. At that point the Supreme Court would be an irrelevancy until the response has ended in whatever way. Courts only really matter when there is rule of law, if people choose to revolt then by definition they are overthrowing current rule of law in an attempt to replace it with something more to their preference, at the end of the day, the winners will decide who did or did not act legally, and what punishments should be given for those actions just ask the English, according to English law of the time the founders would have be hanged for treason, not venerated as hero's.
I'm not arguing against guns. I'm arguing against this notion the 2nd amendment was placed to specifically prevent govt tyranny, which is what the OP is about.
It sounds like "miltias" in the 21st century, as you describe them, are a very last resort.
A "very last resort"? Well, they could, as easily be the first line of defense. A militia force can organize, on scene, very quickly, whereas federal, state and even local forces take time to react. Local forces, police and such, could be already overwhelmed, such as during Katrina, and state and federal agencies could take days, or even weeks to get on scene.
Decent citizens, IMHO, have an obligation to be ready for the worst. It's their homes and communities that could be in danger. To rely on the government to react to a dire situation before extreme damage and loss of life happens, is foolish. So, no, I don't feel a militia force to be a "last resort" . They could easily need to be first rezponders.responders.
So then what you're actually saying is that in the context of people protecting themselves against a tyrannic government, that we need to refer to one wing of that government to determine whether that government is actually tyrannic?
That's kind of an oxymoron. Tyrants rarely admit their tyranny, and anyone truthfully stating such would be ruthlessly silenced.
In reality however the fluidity of local, state and federal government and the beliefs and perceptions of the people will lead to a determination of whether such a government is tyrannic and if so what the appropriate response should be. At that point the Supreme Court would be an irrelevancy until the response has ended in whatever way. Courts only really matter when there is rule of law, if people choose to revolt then by definition they are overthrowing current rule of law in an attempt to replace it with something more to their preference, at the end of the day, the winners will decide who did or did not act legally, and what punishments should be given for those actions just ask the English, according to English law of the time the founders would have be hanged for treason, not venerated as hero's.
I meant in the context of discussion of constitutionality that was being had.
Tyrants rarely have a major two party political system, free press, free speech, and the right to assemble. This whole thread is trying to push the 2nd Amendment as THE amendment that allows everything to fall in place and secure everything. American history has shown their are far more effective ways under our Constitution to enact change than with a gun.
So then what you're actually saying is that in the context of people protecting themselves against a tyrannic government, that we need to refer to one wing of that government to determine whether that government is actually tyrannic?
That's kind of an oxymoron. Tyrants rarely admit their tyranny, and anyone truthfully stating such would be ruthlessly silenced.
In reality however the fluidity of local, state and federal government and the beliefs and perceptions of the people will lead to a determination of whether such a government is tyrannic and if so what the appropriate response should be. At that point the Supreme Court would be an irrelevancy until the response has ended in whatever way. Courts only really matter when there is rule of law, if people choose to revolt then by definition they are overthrowing current rule of law in an attempt to replace it with something more to their preference, at the end of the day, the winners will decide who did or did not act legally, and what punishments should be given for those actions just ask the English, according to English law of the time the founders would have be hanged for treason, not venerated as hero's.
True. Lincoln was a tyrant who ignored the supreme court and the constitution. Most people today forgive that due to the abolishing of slavery, and I feel thats a mistake. The ends do not justify the means.
We fought a war on states rights and the Federal government won.
That was an example of states keeping federal power in check.
The founders intended for your vote and your free speech as the personal check of the government, not your gun. If your state decided the federal government had gone to far, you coukd leave the union. Thats what many felt was a just and legal cause. All of that went away with the 14th amendment, which stripped the states of any real power outside of the amendment process. When was the last time we did that again?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
