A Philosophical argument for the repeal of Second Amendment

I will go along with Mr Carguychris in most respects, if not all. I don't think the type of weapon or arms, which is the word used, is important to the second amendment so much as the word militia. Most who argue the point ignore the first phrase, which you are certainly free to do, I suppose. But the concept of a militia is not dead and obsolete. Whether or not a modern militia would seem as strange to the writers as an M16 is also unimportant. Other things would seem just as strange. It is true, however, that the workings of a modern militia are generally unlike those of the 18th century. As a matter of fact, the only militia in the world that approaches the concept happens to be Canadian, which unit I can't remember the name of but I think it's simply the Canadian Rangers, not to be confused with the Rocky Mountain Rangers or the Queen's York Rangers (1st American Regiment), which is an armored unit. Interesting names, they are. However, the unit to which I refer has an active military role of patrolling the northern frontier of Canada, which for some reason other countries may have designs on. They do not wear regular uniform and they are armed with Lee-Enfield bolt action rifles. Do you think there's any justification for such a unit anywhere in this country?

In some ways, the Swiss system approaches a traditional form of a militia. They do have everything issued and keep everything at home, although some things have changed. I don't think ammo is kept at home anymore and when it was, it was in cans and strictly accounted for. And just like the colonial militia, it is not voluntary, which I suspect would be a sticking point for a lot of otherwise nice folks here.

So, whattya think?
 
Over throw of government was part of the reason. Read the Federalist Papers.

If you think only muzzle loaders were included in the 2nd A, then you can't extend freedom of the press to radio, tv, indeed newspapers because they use electricity and not hand cranked printing presses.

The 2A means what it says. And "well regulated" in the language of the time means drilled, and equipped.

"the people" means all the people in the 2A just as the "the people" in the rest of the Constitution.

Generally you can't separate the Declaration of Independence from the Constition since essentially they are related having the same authors
 
A point of order.

JimPage said:
Generally you can't separate the Declaration of Independence from the Constitution since essentially they are related having the same authors
Click to expand...

Thomas Jefferson penned the Declaration and was Ambassador to France when the Constitution was written. He had no hand in that writing.
 
The Federalist Papers were not passed by the constitutional convention. Again, you can't argue what they thought or what they wanted. You can only argue what they did: the constituition. And if you think they thought overthrowing the government was okay, then no wonder gun owners are a little suspect. What makes you think any new government would be better?
 
On overthrowning the government ... what makes you think the new one would be any better?

Nailed that one! Does the phrase "Arab Spring" come to mind? Seems to me that in each and every instance is more like an "Arab Winter".

Replacing an existing government yields: New government better ... new government no better, no worse ... new government worse.

Seems to me like it's 2 out 3 against being better. Just sayin'! Let's just say that we got lucky first time around. Want to roll them bones again?

MERRY CHRISTMAS!:D
 
if you view the first document the Declaration of Independence: "That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to 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. Prudence"

"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."

Then the Second Amendment: "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

The Second Amendment was to provide citizens means to defend themselves against others and against despots who tried to oppress citizens. The founding fathers did not trust a standing army in fact they disbanded the Continental Army. Alexander Hamilton said that militia must be trained and have discipline and should be armed as well.

Keeping that in mind would they have the militia armed with with something inferior to what standing armies were carrying? If these Citizen Soldiers who formed the militia were to face standing armies I beleive the intent was to have them armed with firearms of the same quality.

If you could bring them back show them an M-4 and tell them that this is what the military carries and then tell them the citizens shouldn't be armed with these they would disagree with you.
 
No, I keep saying that what the arms are does not matter. Other things matter, however. But if you want to change the government, go ahead. But do it the right way. Remember, however, that if the government is overthrown by revolution, which did happen, the old constitution also goes. You have to start all over again.

Because you also have the right to peacefully assemble, the first thing you do is to have a state convention, or perhaps a national convention. There's nothing sacred about the idea of our state governments. We could just have adminstrative districts or something like that. Anyway, that's where you get together and talk about exactly what it is you don't like about our form of government. We have them every four years anyway, only for a different purpose.

Oh, yes! We're talking about changing the form of government. After all, remember that the oppressive government you don't like is one that got elected, in theory, by the majority of voters. Perhaps only a bare majority but a majority just the same. You'll have that to deal with, too. Finally, once all that's out of the way, then you can have your little revolting change of government.

It won't be easy but there are some things to do to expedite the process. First, you have to get the army on your side. That's the way it's done in other countries. Don't imagine you're going to do something that's never been done before. Failing that, you have to have a foreign power to help you out. You're simply not going to get anywhere with nothing but Bushmaster rifles. You're also going to need a whole lot of ammunition.

Good luck!
 
Arguing the intent of the 2A doesn't mean one is advocating overthrow. I believe the statement was to show the one of the prime reasons for the 2A.

Al Norris: "Thomas Jefferson penned the Declaration and was Ambassador to France when the Constitution was written. He had no hand in that writing."

What you say, Al, is true. But philosophy of the documents was common among the founders. I still maintain that they should be taken as a group because they are inextricably related to both history and philosophy. To say Jefferson has no influence on the Constitution is bisarre.
 
Devils Advocate You Say?

A Philosophical argument for the repeal of Second Amendment
Click to expand...
That WE the people (or 2/3rds thereof) acknowledge we do NOT live in a Free State and furthermore do not DESIRE to live in a state of FREEDOM, we hereby repeal the second amendment abrogating the rights and NEED of the people to arm bears, to include anyone and all, other than the Federal government's Standing Army, and/or their respective appointed agents, reserving for that august body alone, the Right to keep and bear arms to be used as they see fit and this Shall Not Be Infringed (and we mean it this time) :eek:

(I'll allow the lawyers among us to clean up the language to a better point of strangulation) :D

Now THAT might actually pass muster with some, sadly (couldnt resist arming bears, mea culpa). I'm sure most everyone, save one or two rebels to the cause, in the District of Columbia and the self appointed intelligentsia of academia and the media would think it fine and natural.

But why stop there? If you're on a roll, turn the entire document into squeezably soft bumwad. :o
 
JimPage said:
What you say, Al, is true. But philosophy of the documents was common among the founders. I still maintain that they should be taken as a group because they are inextricably related to both history and philosophy. To say Jefferson has no influence on the Constitution is bisarre.
Click to expand...

Inextricably related? Between those two, are the Articles of Confederation and perpetual Union (the documents full title). One is related to the other only by the liberal philosophies, that the learned men (we call our founders) of the that time, studied.

As for the Declaration itself, Jefferson was heavily influenced by the writings of John Locke, an English philosopher (see the 2nd Treatise of Government i.e. "long train of abuses..."), whose writings on the social contract, religious freedom and the secular nature of Government was instrumental in all the founders thinking.

The Constitution was a product of the failure of the Articles. Again, influenced by Locke, it was James Madison (admittedly a protege of Jefferson), who took up the mantle.
 
There is no sanity in a repeal of the 2A and certainly no freedom either, if it was too be... I think of this situation as someone proposing to do a lobotomy on themselves.... Just a deeply bad idea...
 
Last edited:
If the second amendment is either a protection of the nation in lieu of a standing army, or a protection of the individual states from national overreach; it is moribund.
Thus the second amendment should be repealed.

We now have a standing army, many times more powerful than any possible foe. So the need for an armed citizenry to protect the nation in times of invasion no longer exists.

The states have their own standing armies in the form of the various national guards. Many of these national guards are more powerful than a majority of national armies. If a state had to protect itself from federal overreach it would depend on the national guard rather than the armed citizen/militia.
We have empirical evidence that armed citizens are not necessary for the overthrow of tyrannical government.
We also have evidence that in times of civil strife armed citizens are just as likely to use firearms in support of tyrannical governments as they are to use them against.

Any justification for the retention of the 2nd that depends on the relevance of a militia is at best archaic.

To take it one step further, the 2nd amendment should be repealed because of the danger it represents to individual liberty.
According to the militia acts, all citizens from 18 to middle age are members of the militia.
For a militia to be effective the members of that militia have to be registered and the number and types of weapons they have needs to be know.
There is nothing in the 2nd that bars registration and the militia clause would seem to make it mandatory.
During those times in which there was an active militia, the militia was called out for regular inspection and training. Under the 2nd amendment it would be well within both federal and state governments powers to call up the such a militia today.
A tyrannical or corrupt government could use this ability as a way of putting financial burdens on their opposition. They could use this ability to propagandize or coerce militia members into using force against their fellow citizens.

So if you want an argument against the 2nd amendment I think those will do for a start.
 
While you make some good point, Buzzcock, and in some ways the 2nd amendment is almost irrelevant, I hardly think it represents any danger to individual liberty. However, thinking that individual liberty is the most important thing is a danger in itself. I would even say that the obligations of a native Indian living in the Amazon jungle to his fellows may be greater than the obligations that most Americans feel to anyone. Have we no social obligations to anyone anymore? Is there nothing higher than self?

Speaking of the militia itself as orginally envisioned, remember that the existance of the militia was assumed. It is mentioned in the constition in two places. Congress is given power to "provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions." The "President shall be Commander in Chief...of the Militias of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States." It sort of begs the question what the purpose of the 2nd amendment is, doesn't it? There is no suggestion anywhere, however, that any form of registration of weapons is necessary for the militia to be effective, nor any suggestion that they need to be provided by the members thereof. Not in the constition at least. In other national laws, such details were covered, but just go read the 2nd amendment and see how little it says. Don't skip over the first phrase, either. In any case, none of the things you mention are reasons for repealing the 2nd amendment.

Personally, as an aside, I think there is too much reliance on the national guard these days, which is unrelated to the basic issue of this thread but it's not an issue much talked about.
 
So, how about that Declaration...?

Our Declaration of Independence acknowledges our unalienable right to Life and Liberty. It neither addresses nor foresees a standing army or a state militia (meaning a state in the Union) as we now have.

And, it didn't need to.

I believe that the Second Amendment intends to reaffirm our unalienable right to Life and Liberty by means commensurate with those entities who would deprive us - meaning (in my opinion) in combination of type and number to maintain parity with an enemy of the State. As oaths of allegiance often state...'to protect the Constitution from all enemies, foreign and domestic.' In defending the Constitution, we are also defending our unalienable rights.
 
BlueTrain said:
Speaking of the militia itself as orginally envisioned, remember that the existance of the militia was assumed. It is mentioned in the constition in two places. Congress is given power to "provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions." The "President shall be Commander in Chief...of the Militias of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States." It sort of begs the question what the purpose of the 2nd amendment is, doesn't it? There is no suggestion anywhere, however, that any form of registration of weapons is necessary for the militia to be effective, nor any suggestion that they need to be provided by the members thereof. Not in the constition at least.
Click to expand...

Since you quoted clause 15, you should have read the next clause (16) of section 8:
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, [of] the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;​
That little word I highlighted was the express purpose of the 2A RKBA.

If the Congress alone were the sole authority to arm the militia, they could just as well refuse to arm them and the populace as a whole could be disarmed. Hence the right of the people to keep and bear arms.
 
I don't know about that. For one thing, not everything is contained within the constitution or the amendments. I suspect that were it written today, there would be an attempt to do so but that's neither here nor there. Also, congress is not the authority: the constitution is the authority, plus all the other laws. Congress is the power, shared with the president. But that's splitting hairs.

Why don't we call it the 2nd WRM?
 
The 2nd amendment is not mostly about a militia. It is about the right of individuals to have and keep firearms.

Most of U.S. law comes down to us from the British. There was a long history in England of individuals having the right to have and keep weapons.

In the 12th century Henry the II had obligated all freemen to have certain arms. In the next century Henry III obligated all, serfs and landless farmers included, to have weapons in addition to a knife. The Lords and wealthy were of course armed as were their retainers and hirelings. There were no local professional police in England until the early 1800s so the King expected that when the "hue and cry" was raised against bandits, etc. armed locals would respond.

In 1671 Parliament passed a law which made the right to hunt attached to the amount of property a person owned. It also made hunting firearms illegal except for a wealthy few (which may have been about all who could afford the odd contraptions anyway). There was opposition to this.

In 1686 James II forbid all but Catholics from having firearms. Not such a good idea in a country that had gone 98% to the Church of England and other non Catholic denominations. James was overthrown in 1689, the English Bill of Rights was written which provided "That the Subjects which are Protestants may have Arms for their defense suitable for their conditions, and as allowed by law." Which prevented the King from disarming the population but subordinated the general right to Parliament. It also initiated debate.

In America the colonists watched all this. They considered themselves British citizens. They also considered that they had a "natural", "god given" right to defend themselves. They were armed as a matter of course. Firearms were common and needed. For hunting, against the encroachments of the French, Spanish and Dutch, against Indian wars and attacks. In the slave colonies rebellions were common and escapes as well. The Maroon societies (towns of escaped slaves often intermarried with Native Americans) though not citizens of anything considered their right to be armed important as well.

The right of individuals to be and have weapons including firearms was assumed. In light of what occurred in England it was also cherished.

No one much cherished any "right" to be impressed into an army or militia. The 2nd is primarily about the rights of individuals.

The constitution of Pennsylvania was adopted in 1776. It was the first to use the phrase "to keep and bear arms". It also did not have a militia.

tipoc
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top