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.
And now in the modern day, we have various law enforcement agencies at all levels of govt (local, state, and fed) for domestic protection and a powerful army for foreign aggression (or just to be the world's police). Guns in today ages are used for personal protection, hunting, and recreation. Right or wrong, that's how it has played out. Every armed uprising against the American govt has failed, and one instance came at GREAT human life. So this notion that the 2nd amendment is for the purpose of disposing tyrannical govt is just impotent.
Never the less, it's the reason that it's one of our rights.
I didn't get into the aspects of revolt against our government so much. Not at all actually. Though I do believe keeping our government honest IS part of the intent of the 2A, it is a small part. It is my interpretation, that the militia is a reserve force, to deploy and protect communities, when the government cannot. That, and to aid regular forces, in the event of extenuating circumstances. Many such circumstances spring to mind, such as control of looters and other bad guys after a natural disaster, foreign invasion, widespread criminal mischief, of a plethora of types, wherever extra, armed, manpower, is needed. This need not even be in a direct, combat, role, but, being armed and able to defend themselves, while performing duties, is a plus. Then regular forces need not have to sap manpower to send with them.
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.
Quote:
Just because the agencies you mention are in place, does not mean they will always have sufficient personell to be truly effective. Enter the militia. You are thinking far to narrowly. I believe the OP is, as well. The militia is not a tool of armed revolt. It is an arm of the domestic common defense.
It sounds like "miltias" in the 21st century, as you describe them, are a very last resort.
Yeah, it did a great job of protecting us against the Patriot Act. And it's also working wonders on preventing NSA spying
The freedom of speech and of the press is what really protects our freedom. The civil rights movement is a good example there. Also that guy standing in front of the tank in China
What was never allowed to be filmed was what happened as few minutes latter when the men of the Peoples Liberation Army cleaned the street put the guys remains in trash bin and washed the blood off the treads of a T-64 tank!
Never the less, it's the reason that it's one of our rights.
That's fine. People should be able to own guns for personal protection, hunting, and recreation/competition. Never argued otherwise. Just arguing about this wet dream of a fantasy of some gun nuts that the 2nd amendment is all about overthrowing tyrannical govts. It's silly to think the Founders would create a new system of govt only to say, "well if you don't like it, use violence and shoot those who are against you".
The 18th century was a time where people NEEDED guns for their very survival and existence.
That's fine. People should be able to own guns for personal protection, hunting, and recreation/competition. Never argued otherwise. Just arguing about this wet dream of a fantasy of some gun nuts that the 2nd amendment is all about overthrowing tyrannical govts. It's silly to think the Founders would create a new system of govt only to say, "well if you don't like it, use violence and shoot those who are against you".
The 18th century was a time where people NEEDED guns for their very survival and existence.
They added the second amendment so that a government couldn't ignore the constitution. That is why the military oath is to uphold the constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic.
They added the second amendment so that a government couldn't ignore the constitution. That is why the military oath is to uphold the constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic.
No we have 3 branches of govt for that reason, checks and balances....
They added the second amendment so that a government couldn't ignore the constitution. That is why the military oath is to uphold the constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic.
No they didnt. They added the second amendment because the founders feared a standing army of paid troops, and felt that the best way to stay out of European conflicts, and keep our country safe at the same time was to ensure that every person had weapons.
All of that was part of the thinking before rapid fire weapons, rifled artillery, and planes.
The founders knew from history that a constant threat of war was used by countless empires to keep common citizens scared and under control. They didn't want war. They wanted to avoid war. Its why it required a vote from congress to declare war.
Yall should really learn some history. This is the third time (and this time far less complicated, read ky previous posts I this thread) I've had to correct you on what the founders thought and wanted.
They allowed for restrictions on weapons as constitutional even in 1792 there were state laws passed to ban walking around with axes and loaded weapons, all accepted as needed and well under the writing of the second amendment restrictions on the federal and state governments power. Limiting what kind of weapons you can own is very constitutional.
This was never meant so that you could have open rebellion against your government. Ask Daniel Shay how that worked out.
No we have 3 branches of govt for that reason, checks and balances....
In the Federal Government there are those three branches.
However there are three additional branches of US government overall, the Federal Government (as a combination of congress, executive and SC), The States, and The People.
Thus there are checks and balances internal to the FedGov, and the FedGov is also checked and balanced externally by the States and the People. Ignoring these additional aspects is quite common because of much of the focus on the Federal Government.
In the Federal Government there are those three branches.
However there are three additional branches of US government overall, the Federal Government (as a combination of congress, executive and SC), The States, and The People.
Thus there are checks and balances internal to the FedGov, and the FedGov is also checked and balanced externally by the States and the People. Ignoring these additional aspects is quite common because of much of the focus on the Federal Government.
I disagree. The people are the ultimate control of the federal government, because they can vote in a completely new house every two years if we want. But you have to in your state.
The state government has no real check on federal power. Secession was the only real option they had, and Lincoln stole that power.
I've said numerous times, the government we had in April of 1861 was far weaker then we had in April of 1965.
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.
Prove me wrong.
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.
