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.
The three "inalienable rights" found in the U.S. Declaration of Independence are "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness." So, if something abridges one of these rights, is that not to be a concern?
It certainly is a concern. Whether that something is government, the neighborhood home invader, rapist, or murderer. These are the reasons the 2nd amendment was enshrined in our Supreme Law of the Land.
People being the imperfect creatures they are, there will always also be the occasional nutcase murderer among millions of normal Americans. It would be nice if we could somehow stop him without diminishing the 2nd amendment's effect on the rest. Nobody has found a way to do that yet.
After their long study of governments (and common criminals) over the ages, the Framers decided long ago that the American people would be safer and more prosperous, if government had no authority whatsoever, to decide who could own a gun and who couldn't; or what kind they could own. Even if it meant putting up with the occasional mass murderer (a guy who carried four single-shot pistols or multi-shot "pepperboxes", plus several knives to carry out his insane plans, not much different from what we have in 2018).
And no one has been able to refute the Framers' conclusions, ever since.
We are STILL better off with govt unable to restrict or take away our guns, even if it means putting up with the occasional Nikolas Cruz or Vegas shooter. A lot more people would die if govt had the ability to take away or restrict our guns... as governments have grimly demonstrated throughout history.
The 2nd amendment is part of the first 10amendments which have collectively become known as the bill of rights. These first 10 amendments specifically affirm and secure these protected rights that directly apply to Individuals.
To get a better idea of what the founding fathers were thinking, I enjoy reading the preamble to the declaration of independence. Here is an excerpt " We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
2.2 That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness.
2.3 Prudence, indeed, will dictate that governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shown, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed.
2.4 But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security"
The founding fathers are clear in their intent. Individual rights to own guns are affirmed and encouraged. They are for many potential purposes. Used to protect yourself or others from crime or predators, protect yourself, ensure there is not a foreign invasion and if so you can fight back, and to keep the government honest and to not become tyrannical.
Funny, I don't see one mention of weapons there.
And, are really that unable to see context. At the time, it took 6-12 weeks to travel from England to America. England, and hence the colonies, was ruled by a king, not an elected official. The Brits or colonists couldn't vote the king out of office. Perhaps you should study the definition of despotism...and we do not have a despotic government, whether you personally like it or not. You don't like your elected representatives? Vote them out of the office.
And, are really that unable to see context. At the time, it took 6-12 weeks to travel from England to America. England, and hence the colonies, was ruled by a king, not an elected official. The Brits or colonists couldn't vote the king out of office. Perhaps you should study the definition of despotism...and we do not have a despotic government, whether you personally like it or not. You don't like your elected representatives? Vote them out of the office.
Justice Joseph Story:
The militia is the natural defence of a free country against sudden foreign invasions, domestic insurrections, and domestic usurpations of power by rulers. It is against sound policy for a free people to keep up large military establishments and standing armies in time of peace, both from the enormous expenses, with which they are attended, and the facile means, which they afford to ambitious and unprincipled rulers, to subvert the government, or trample upon the rights of the people. The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them
Well Regulated in the 1775 meant in good working order, so for a militia to be in good working order, it was ready to come to the aid of the community, it was expected at that time for the person to bring their own arms.
The 2nd amendment sole purpose it to give the people as a whole the ability to defend themselves from an aggressor if they choose too, weather that aggressor was foreign or domestic. So the 2nd amendment is just as relevant as it was when it was written
I doubt that the definition in 1776 was much different than in 1828 when Webster published his dictionary
Quote:
Regulate
REG'ULATE, verb transitive
1. To adjust by rule, method or established mode; as, to regulate weights and measures; to regulate the assize of bread; to regulate our moral conduct by the laws of God and of society; to regulate our manners by the customary forms.
2. To put in good order; as, to regulate the disordered state of a nation or its finances.
3. To subject to rules or restrictions; as, to regulate trade; to regulate diet.
So, then well regulated would mean to be in good working order, well adjusted, and managed, and subject to the rules and restrictions deemed applicable.
While we are at it, let's look at the definition of Militia in that time period.
Quote:
MILI'TIA, noun
[Latin from miles, a soldier; Gr. war, to fight, combat, contention. The primary sense of fighting is to strive, struggle, drive, or to strike, to beat, Eng. moil, Latin molior; Heb. to labor or toil.]
The body of soldiers in a state enrolled for discipline, but not engaged in actual service except in emergencies; as distinguished from regular troops, whose sole occupation is war or military service. The militia of a country are the able bodied men organized into companies, regiments and brigades, with officers of all grades, and required by law to attend military exercises on certain days only, but at other times left to pursue their usual occupations.
So, "A well regulated Militia", would have been easily assumed to be a body of men trained and armed to provide military service when required by the State for defense or other emergency.
[Also from Webster: State (abridged)...
Quote:
5. A political body, or body politic; the whole body of people united under one government, whatever may be the form of the government.
Municipal law is a rule of conduct prescribed by the supreme power in a state
More usually the word signifies a political body governed by representatives; a commonwealth; as the States of Greece; the States of America. In this sense, state has sometimes more immediate reference to the government, sometimes to the people or community. Thus when we say, the state has made provision for the paupers, the word has reference to the government or legislature; but when we say, the state is taxed to support paupers, the word refers to the whole people or community.
6. A body of men united by profession, or constituting a community of a particular character; as the civil and ecclesiastical states in Great Britain. But these are sometimes distinguished by the terms church and state In this case, state signifies the civil community or government only.
The militia is the natural defence of a free country against sudden foreign invasions, domestic insurrections, and domestic usurpations of power by rulers. It is against sound policy for a free people to keep up large military establishments and standing armies in time of peace, both from the enormous expenses, with which they are attended, and the facile means, which they afford to ambitious and unprincipled rulers, to subvert the government, or trample upon the rights of the people. The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them
We can each quote notable people with our opinions. Big deal.
I don't understand why you constantly want to resort to weapons when all you have to do is vote and participate in a relatively democratic country.
I think your understanding of what liberty is and a big government police state is lacking. While there is a place for police and military, it should be as minimal as possible and a free people take more responsibility for their needs and safety. The Founders are clear on this.
If the ultimate goal in life was saving lives, we could do a lot of things like, eliminating cars, junk foods, airplanes etc... We could electronically chip everyone, put cameras on every corner and in every home. We could post armed guards everywhere. But, is this freedom? Your solution just expands the big government police state. I propose we take the path of a free people.
The Declaration of Independence holds no legal sway in America, it's not part of any law. The 2nd amendment is. You can argue about the lengths to which the 2nd amendment can be applied but using the Declaration as any type of counter-argument is legally meaningless.
I think your understanding of what liberty is and a big government police state is lacking. While there is a place for police and military, it should be as minimal as possible and a free people take more responsibility for their needs and safety. The Founders are clear on this.
If the ultimate goal in life was saving lives, we could do a lot of things like, eliminating cars, junk foods, airplanes etc... We could electronically chip everyone, put cameras on every corner and in every home. We could post armed guards everywhere. But, is this freedom? Your solution just expands the big government police state. I propose we take the path of a free people.
No, actually they're not clear on this, which is why from time to time the issue has gone to the courts.
I propose you take the path of voting in free elections.
The Declaration of Independence holds no legal sway in America, it's not part of any law. The 2nd amendment is. You can argue about the lengths to which the 2nd amendment can be applied but using the Declaration as any type of counter-argument is legally meaningless.
Well, not really.
How many gun mongers in this thread have pointed out the phrase "that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights" as an inspiration to the Declaration? And that phrase (and other from The Declaration) laid the groundwork for parts of the Constitution.
I think your understanding of what liberty is and a big government police state is lacking. While there is a place for police and military, it should be as minimal as possible and a free people take more responsibility for their needs and safety. The Founders are clear on this.
If the ultimate goal in life was saving lives, we could do a lot of things like, eliminating cars, junk foods, airplanes etc... We could electronically chip everyone, put cameras on every corner and in every home. We could post armed guards everywhere. But, is this freedom? Your solution just expands the big government police state. I propose we take the path of a free people.
I wish I could give you more positive feedback for this post.
The founding fathers wanted a fiscally responsible, small and limited government with mainly conservative/libertarian views.
In current America our government continues mutating and growing at an amazing rate growing ever stronger and more powerful every single generation. Many People have placed the government up on a pedestal to where they have given it more power than it should have. The government is not your babysitter, caretaker, Santa claus, Nanny or provider. People should take pride in doing things themselves and exercising personal control and responsibility. The government now spends insane money on idiotic things.
The single biggest issue I have with curre t government is they spend 99% of their effort on increasing regulations, making new additional laws, increasing government control. It should be the opposite. They should be spending 99% of their energy trying to streamline things, reduce government power, increase personal freedom and liberty, reduce unnecessary legislation etc..
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.
