A Philosophical argument for the repeal of Second Amendment

Tenche Coxe: “Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves?"

Richard Henry Lee: “A militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves…and include all men capable of bearing arms.”

George Mason: “I ask you sir, who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people.”
 
My understanding if 2A is that we as citizen is entitled to "bear ARMS", a guarantee against tyrannical government.

"Arms" does not apply exclusively to guns and should mean to the whole spectrum of defensive technology; ie, ballistic missile, helicopters, tanks, or instrument of information warfare.
 
There is no way the authors of The Bill of Rights could ever have imagined semi-automatic firearms with 30-round magazines, they were talking about single-shot muzzle loaders for hunting only, therefore The People should NOT be allowed to have semi-automatic high-capacity firearms...
Click to expand...

At the time, a single-shot front-stuffer was exactly what the military had.

I would argue that equivalent arms was exactly what was envisioned.

Do I need an "assault weapon?" Meh, probably not. But as a mentally sound, law abiding citizen why shouldn't I have one? Why shouldn't you, as a (presumably) mentally sound, equally law abiding citizen have one too? We could go shooting together;)

There are lots of things that people don't need, but I don't believe it is the role of government to tell me what I need
 
I don't think the weapon is important provided you see the situation the same way the convention saw it. It was that they did not want a standing army. The idea was that the militia (the well regulated militia) was going to do whatever armies did. And in fact, it mostly did, though not well enough to actually do without a standing army. Sometimes it did very poorly, although that is neither here nor there. But basically, the militia of that day was like our national guard, only it was a requirement and not a voluntary organization. The purpose of the second amendment does not seem to have been to allow any and all to carry a weapon. Naturally, much argument centers around that point.

Another point of considerable disagreement is the confusing idea that the second amendment is to ensure that citizens can overthrow the government. Now, I ask you: if you were writing a constitution, would you say that in so many words? Would you even want that possibility? Really, that's not the way it'd done.

Finally, it hardly applied to everyone in the first place, partly because membership in the militia was a defined state, not something that included everyone. Obviously, a lot of the language in the declaration of independence and the constitution was very high-sounding but clearly did not apply to all that many people. While many things have been changed over the years, whatever the original meaning was remains the original meaning, if that's what one is going by.

Another minor point is the whole concept of government. No rights are ever surrendered to government but at the same time, governments have powers that no individual ever has. Which is why there is government. Any kind of government, any time, anywhere.

I rather doubt that any person not a pirate during the late 18th century had cannon. They could have armed ships but only with license from the government. Even in the middle ages, one could simply not build a castle if one wanted to. You had to get a license. No forms, no inspections but you had to get permission from the government.
 
The organized or Select Militia was of restricted membership by definition, but you are leaving out the unorganized Militia which, while it had some restrictions on age and did not permit certain government officals, was much more inclusive.

I'm also reminded of "... being necessary for the security of a free state..." and the question: what if the government at some point becomes tyrannical? What then as to the "security of a free state?

Are you certain, or just speculate, that a shipping merchant needed government permission to arm his vessels?
 
Blue Train, I respectfully disagree with your statement concerning the right of the people to overthrow an overbearing government. Mr. Jefferson, in the Declaration of Independence, stated clearly that it was not only a right but a duty. Those responsible for the founding of our government were the greatest collection of political thinkers ever assembled in the history of the world. They devised the greatest government ever wrought by mankind. I think we would all be better served by reaquainting ourselves with the precepts and ideas put forth by them.
 
I second ronl's motion.

And, I encourage EVERYONE to read: The Creation of the American Republic 1776-1787, by Gordon S. Wood, to gleen for yourself the actual thoughts of the Founders, in their own words.

The proof is in the pudding.
 
There is no way the authors of The Bill of Rights could ever have imagined semi-automatic firearms with 30-round magazines....................

why and so what?
 
There is no way the authors of The Bill of Rights could ever have imagined semi-automatic firearms with 30-round magazines....................
Click to expand...

They didn't need too.. they allowed ordinary citizens to own cannon and fire some really nasty grapeshot which very much has an effect like automatic fire.. And they allowed citizens to use any weapon they could afford without limitation as to type..
 
When the Founding Fathers put the 2nd amendment in the Constitution they did so so that the people could defend themselves against an all powerful government. Military style weapons were EXACTLY what they intended the people to have.

Kind of funny that the government is now trying to take these types of firearms from us isn't it.
 
cannon

ever hear of a letter of marquee? The way it worked is first you had to have a ship ready and armed first. During the dark ages all you needed was enough money.

I rather doubt that any person not a pirate during the late 18th century had cannon. They could have armed ships but only with license from the government. Even in the middle ages, one could simply not build a castle if one wanted to. You had to get a license. No forms, no inspections but you had to get permission from the government.
Click to expand...

Add: As for repealing the 2nd, it ain't going to happen. It requires approval of 2/3 of the states. Go look at a map showing red states vs blue states.
 
even more to the point it's not about what the tool can do but what it is for, the protection of liberty. In the modern ara you need a modern tool to face the ones that would take your liberty by force.
 
As for repealing the 2nd, it ain't going to happen. It requires approval of 2/3 of the states. Go look at a map showing red states vs blue states.
Click to expand...
Just for a little clarity on how amendments are made to the constitution.

Either congress or the states can propose an amendment. Both houses must propose the same amendment with a 2/3 vote. Also the states can do the same thing if 2/3 of the states call for a constitutional convention.

Ratification has to be done by 3/4 of the states approving the amendment. Seven years are allowed for the ratification process.

See I did learn something in political science class.:)
 
There seem to be several trains of thought going on in this thread simultaneously. I think a little clarification is in order.

It's very important to remember that the militia, in colonial times, was an institution that acted strictly under state control. Many states sanctioned private militia organizations, but they were required to follow the state governments' orders; this is an important part of the original meaning of the phrase "well regulated" in the 2A. Militiamen who refused to follow the state's orders would most likely be characterized as bandits or even rebels.

The Constitution gives Congress the power to regulate the militia (Article I, Section 8) and gives the President the power to act as commander in chief of the militia (Article II, Section 2). Some states saw this as an overreach of federal power. The prefatory or militia clause of the 2A was enacted to prevent Congress or the President from using their Constitutionally-granted powers to emasculate the militia, either by ordering militamen to disarm outright, or by ordering them to store their arms in a remote armory where their guns could be confiscated.

I believe that the militia clause was intended to act in concert with the pre-existing common-law right to bear arms, in order to ensure that militiamen were able to wield personally-owned military-grade weapons and bring them to bear if the states had to act against the federal government... but this power would be exercised by the states, NOT by self-appointed and unsanctioned groups of citizens. The founders wanted protection from an out-of-control central government; they did NOT want anarchy!

It's important to remember that the founders had just watched the central government under the Articles of Confederation collapse, and they were well aware of the chaotic history of European royalty. Their main concern was that the central government would collapse again, or worse yet, that a weak Congress would acquiesce as the President declared himself King. :eek:

BTW the concept of the "unorganized" militia is a relatively recent one. The idea is actually intended as a dodge to ensure that military-age citizens can be drafted without requiring universal peacetime military conscription. The U.S. actually once had a universal conscription program under the Militia Acts, but it was unpopular, and the states steadily dismantled it by fabricating various reasons why certain and increasingly larger and larger portions of their military-age population were exempt. :rolleyes: The unorganized militia is essentially a codification of this idea; it ensures that military-age citizens can be drafted in times of war, ensuring an adequate national defense, while not requiring anything from them in times of peace.
 
Last edited:
Carguy Chris, I completely understand your argument and justification for the wording of the 2A. I can't argue with it, as it makes very logical sense, moreso that anything than I've heard regarding the amendment. However, I must say that the civil war destroyed the State vs Federal government rights. For most government agencies functioning at various levels, they are merely imitative puppets of the central control nowadays. As much as I resent saying this, the rationale of your explanation is irrelevant to modern america.
 
I'm not so sure the founding fathers couldn't have imagined semi-auto(or full auto for that matter) rifles. I really don't see them as totally different than what we had back then. Just think about the first cars that were made and the cars today. They both do essentially the same thing, just that today's cars do it much better than the first cars.
Laser guns, nuclear weapons on the other hand maybe not. Even still Heller said the new technologies must be applied to the constitution, and that modern communications fall under 1A protection, even though the founders didn't know about phones or the internet.
 
However, I must say that the civil war destroyed the State vs Federal government rights. For most government agencies functioning at various levels, they are merely imitative puppets of the central control nowadays.
Click to expand...
Your point is debatable, and IMHO it's hard to reasonably argue that the 13A and 14A aren't beneficial to most Americans in most respects.
As much as I resent saying this, the rationale of your explanation is irrelevant to modern america.
Click to expand...
I'm not precisely sure what part of my rationale you're addressing, but I'll be the first to agree that the colonial-era concept of the militia is obsolete and irrelevant to modern America. However, this doesn't neuter the 2A; it just makes the prefatory clause irrelevant too. :) There's no need to guarantee that the militia is armed when the militia has evolved into the National Guard, which is a militia in theory but IMHO actually operates as a de facto reserve force of the regular military.

If I had my druthers, I would create a constitutional amendment eliminating every reference to the militia, and replacing them all with a clause clarifying that the institution of a military draft is a legitimate power of Congress. OTOH the militia isn't the only legal dead weight in the document; after all, it's been over 150 years since Congress issued a letter of marque and reprisal!
 
Your point is debatable, and IMHO it's hard to reasonably argue that the 13A and 14A aren't beneficial to most Americans in most respects.
Click to expand...
They are, but ultimately the point I was making is about the Federal government establishing a precedent of overruling state law.

I'm not precisely sure what part of my rationale you're addressing, but I'll be the first to agree that the colonial-era concept of the militia is obsolete and irrelevant to modern America. However, this doesn't neuter the 2A; it just makes the prefatory clause irrelevant too. There's no need to guarantee that the militia is armed when the militia has evolved into the National Guard, which is a militia in theory but IMHO actually operates as a de facto reserve force of the regular military.
Click to expand...
The rationale of the right and establishment of the militia. Not your rationalization, I admit, but rather the one you were presenting. I apologize for the confusion.

If I had my druthers, I would create a constitutional amendment eliminating every reference to the militia, and replacing them all with a clause clarifying that the institution of a military draft is a legitimate power of Congress. OTOH the militia isn't the only legal dead weight in the document; after all, it's been over 150 years since Congress issued a letter of marque and reprisal!
Click to expand...
I would just make an amendment that says the same thing as it does, without the prefatory clause, and then "shall not be infringed on any conditions whatsoever" haha
 
Last edited:
Well I got bored over on an online news site;

"The 2nd Amendment was drafted by the a bunch of men who used MUSKETS !!! The thought of a MILITARY ASSAULT WEAPON was inconceivable in those days !!"

My comment;


The 2nd Amendment was drafted by the a bunch of men who used printing presses !!!
The thought of the Internet was inconceivable in those days !!


So how about we ban the 1st Amendment because of the typewriter?



The silence was deafening.



Merry Christmas to all :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top