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 whole purpose of the 2nd Amendment is not to prevent tyranny.
you are correct. the 2nd Amendment was put into place to have a state militia that was controlled by the state, and for the right of the people to not have their right to keep and bear arms be infringed upon.
No. The purpose of the 2nd Amendment was to provide a means for a militia in the absence of a standing army.
Not even close to true. Its primary purpose was to ensure the government could not abuse the rights of its citizens. Founders from Madison to Jefferson to Washington have stated that clearly, many times.
Quote:
Those that assert that the 2nd Amendment was to protect the people, so they can rise up against their elected government, are ignorant, plain and simple.
I always get a kick from hearing hysterical wishful thinkers accuse the Framers of the Constitution of being "ignorant". They remind me of a yapping Chihuahua accusing an express train of being noisy.
Quote:
There is no provision in the Constitution to redress tyranny beyond the next election, impeachment and criminal prosecution.
Correct. It's in the Declaration of Independence instead... which was duly passed (unanimously) by the first government the United States had, and remains legally binding to this day. It states flatly that if a government flagrantly abuses the rights of its citizens, it is their DUTY to overthrow it and set up another.
.... when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them [citizens] 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. - Declaration of Independence, T. Jefferson, July 4, 1776
Quote:
The Founders never intended and never provided, a means to sanction insurrection.
My, the wishful thinking (that's my polite name for it) is piling higher and deeper from this hysterical leftist. Who can blame him? If he were to tell the truth instead, he would entirely defeat his own agenda.
No. The purpose of the 2nd Amendment was to provide a means for a militia in the absence of a standing army.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Little-Acorn
.
Correct. It's in the Declaration of Independence instead... which was duly passed (unanimously) by the first government the United States had, and remains legally binding to this day. It states flatly that if a government flagrantly abuses the rights of its citizens, it is their DUTY to overthrow it and set up another.
.... when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them [citizens] 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. - Declaration of Independence, T. Jefferson, July 4, 1776
Two points -- One, the Declaration of Independence has no force of law.
Quote:
Although the Declaration of Independence stands with the Constitution as a founding document of the United States of America, its position in U.S. law is much less certain than that of the Constitution. The Declaration has been recognized as the founding act of law establishing the United States as a sovereign and independent nation, and Congress has placed it at the beginning of the U.S. Code, under the heading "The Organic Laws of the United States of America." The Supreme Court, however, has generally not considered it a part of the organic law of the country. For example, although the Declaration mentions a right to rebellion, this right, particularly with regard to violent rebellion, has not been recognized by the Supreme Court and other branches of the federal government. The most notable failure to uphold this right occurred when the Union put down the rebellion by the Southern Confederacy in the Civil War. Declaration of independence legal definition of Declaration of independence. Declaration of independence synonyms by the Free Online Law Dictionary.
Two, we do not have "absolute Despotism," as existed under the English King. We have a democracy where we elect our leaders. If you have a grievance, as the was what the Declaration of Independence was -- a list of grievances, we have the option of electing different leaders.
What you all are mad about is the fact that the majority elected President Obama against your choice. That's how democracy works. Sometimes the majority elects people you don't like. The remedy is not to declare that the country has become tyrannical and therefore decide to have a revolution. The remedy is to nominate candidates that are attractive to the majority of voters.
A situation where a militia of drooling, dribbling knuckle dragging 2nd amendmenteers would go up against Army/Marines would be like a scene from Blazing Saddles. Gun people are the reason gun ppl need to be disarmed
Doubt it would happen that way.
Most likely you would see LOTS of explosions inside the USA...you know, just like the Murrah building and Boston....throw in some assassinations of government politicians/officials/employees. This may achieve the terrorists goal of causing massive havoc and political change.
The purpose of the 2nd Amendment was not to prevent tyranny. That's just twisting the constitution, as it has no such provision.
The purpose was to provide a means for a militia in the absence of a standing army. Those that assert that the 2nd Amendment was to protect the people, so they can rise up against their elected government, are ignorant, plain and simple.
There is no provision in the Constitution to redress tyranny beyond the next election, impeachment and criminal prosecution. Those are the methods the Founders established for addressing government that didn't represent the people. The Founders never intended and never provided, a means to sanction insurrection by people who got a bug in their head.
[/quote]
I disagree, it was written solely to confusion the easily confused into making the gun makers more money through gun sales. Man the founding fathers thought of everything
Most likely you would see LOTS of explosions inside the USA...you know, just like the Murrah building and Boston....throw in some assassinations of government politicians/officials/employees. This may achieve the terrorists goal of causing massive havoc and political change.
And lots of LE and Military joining in. Most people would oppose a tyrannical government including LE and the Military.
Many people don't understand that Military personnel are sworn to uphold the Constitution, not the Government.
The purpose of the 2nd Amendment was not to prevent tyranny. That's just twisting the constitution, as it has no such provision..
[/quote]
It was absolutely written to prevent tyranny. The entire context of the day was about overthrowing a tyrannical government.
You don't need a constitutional amendment to protect the right of the government to have an army or the right of the people to shoot rabbits. Those rights were never threatened.
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.
