cannonfire
New member
So if I didn't give my consent on a law, I don't have to follow it?
How to explain the second amendment
- Thread starter Red_Eagle
- Start date
So if I didn't give my consent on a law, I don't have to follow it?
Hugh Damright
New member
OBVIOUSLY, it is the people, not each person but the people, that consent to laws. Whether you personally consent or not has no bearing on the matter.
"In every free government, the people must give their assent to the laws by which they are governed. This is the true criterion between a free government and an arbitrary one. The former are ruled by the will of the whole, expressed in any manner they may agree upon; the latter by the will of one, or a few." Antifederalist Paper #1
Last edited:
No doubt some would have said that a monarch would be as just as a republic. After all, there is such a thing as a constiutional monarchy, although they would have not recognized it in the 18th century. Yet some had experience with dictators (lord protectors) and decided an old fashioned monarch was better. We had our own ideas.
They should have been particularly conscious of the security concerns for a free state at the time of the convention, the revolution not being all that distant an event and for some people, even the French & Indian War was not so long ago. Serious war was developing in Europe (as usual) and actual foreign invasion must have been on their minds, and that even happen not many years later. There was tension with Canada, too. In that sense, the constitution was not written in a vacuum (as I said before).
A stronger (if not strong) federal government was one of the objects of the convention, the previous arrangement having shown up some shortcomings. No doubt that bothered some people, probably people with something to lose.
There were troubles with Indians periodically, in places, but frontier security in most places was already being handled by quasi-regular state forces, sometimes referred to as rangers (even then). That was largely the arrangement up and down the Allegheny Front but it wasn't long before the regular army took on that function, especially after the battle of Fallen Timbers, but local militia forces continued to be important until the frontier went beyond the Mississippi River. At the moment we may not fully appreciate the role the regular army had in "pacifying" the west.
However, even after local militia forces of a traditional sort began to be replaced by more regularly organized and equipped state forces, I think it is unquestionable that private ownership of firearms was a generally accepted fact, everywhere. The idea that the absense of a militia muster on the village square commanded by the local squire somehow made a difference in whether or not you could own a nickel plated, break top .38 S&W revolver is entirely a recent idea. The next thing you know is someone suggesting that you should pay a special tax to be able to vote.
They should have been particularly conscious of the security concerns for a free state at the time of the convention, the revolution not being all that distant an event and for some people, even the French & Indian War was not so long ago. Serious war was developing in Europe (as usual) and actual foreign invasion must have been on their minds, and that even happen not many years later. There was tension with Canada, too. In that sense, the constitution was not written in a vacuum (as I said before).
A stronger (if not strong) federal government was one of the objects of the convention, the previous arrangement having shown up some shortcomings. No doubt that bothered some people, probably people with something to lose.
There were troubles with Indians periodically, in places, but frontier security in most places was already being handled by quasi-regular state forces, sometimes referred to as rangers (even then). That was largely the arrangement up and down the Allegheny Front but it wasn't long before the regular army took on that function, especially after the battle of Fallen Timbers, but local militia forces continued to be important until the frontier went beyond the Mississippi River. At the moment we may not fully appreciate the role the regular army had in "pacifying" the west.
However, even after local militia forces of a traditional sort began to be replaced by more regularly organized and equipped state forces, I think it is unquestionable that private ownership of firearms was a generally accepted fact, everywhere. The idea that the absense of a militia muster on the village square commanded by the local squire somehow made a difference in whether or not you could own a nickel plated, break top .38 S&W revolver is entirely a recent idea. The next thing you know is someone suggesting that you should pay a special tax to be able to vote.
carguychris
New member
If the founders intended for individual states to be able to choose whether or not to follow federal rule, why doesn't the Constitution contain any provisions allowing states to legally void federal laws without Congressional intervention, dissolve Congress, and/or secede?
The American system of government is based on the rule of law. IMHO this more than anything else has made the USA into a great country and a model for the world to follow.
The rule of law falls apart if individual jurisdictions can choose to ignore it. It falls apart a lot faster if armed groups, even those acting under quasi-governmental sanction, believe they're allowed to overthrow the federal government by force of violence. This is not a legal remedy. The proper legal remedy is two houses of Congress representing the people.
The 2A is not a self-destruct mechanism.
Hugh Damright
New member
I was not talking about resisting federal rules, I was talking about resisting federal RULE as in being ruled over as in monarchy. Of course, Virginia consented to a central government with certain enumerated powers, I am not talking about resisting that ... I am talking about Virginia resisting a central government that is out of control and removed from anything which we ever freely consented to.
The US Constitution does not declare the right to alter or to abolish government. It does not follow that there is no such right. Both the Declaration of Independence and my Virginia Declaration of Rights declare that the majority of Virginians have a right to alter or to abolish our government, and that specifically means secede. The US Constitution does not seem to create a federal power to prevent secession, I don't see how we can construe the US Constitution being quiet on the matter to mean that the US power exists.
I think you're saying that rule of law precludes nullification. I don't remember saying anything about nullification, but I am not sure that I agree with your premise. In a free State, the people are ruled only by laws which they CONSENT to. You seem to be saying that Virginia consented to a federal government with enumerated powers, and as a result we are bound to accept the federal government exercising undelegated powers. I don't see how you remove consentual government from rule of law. As an analogy, if California passes a law regarding Virginia's intrastate affairs, then rule of law requires Virginia to ignore that law because California would be exercising a power over Virginia that Virginians never consented to. How is it different if the US does it?
Who said anything about overthrowing the federal government? I really don't see how one State could overthrow the other 49.
What about in 1775 in Virginia, when we had British troops here, supposedly to protect us, but really to dominate us ... the French/Indian wars were over, and Virginians declared that we could provide for our own protection ... that a standing army in times of peace was a danger to our political liberty, that the proper/safe/natural defense of a free State is composed of the people of that State, organized into well regulated militia ... it was declared that we especially needed militia at that time ... it seems clear enough to me that the only threat at that time was from our own British government, and that the intent was to be able to stand up to them in defense of our freedom. I see no reason at all to believe that when Virginia requested the Second Amendment, declaring these same principles, that we meant to say that we have a right to resist only foreign threats to our free government.
If I may interject a footnote of history here, one of the causes of the revolution was some disagreement over taxation. The taxes in question were to pay for the war that had ended recently. The colonists, and I might say, the British colonists, had no real say in the matter. But by then, they had ceased to think of themselves as "British colonists" and were thinking of themselves as American colonists. Few of the colonial leaders had lived overseas or gone to school there. They were new growing in new soil, so to speak, although even then, some of them had gone to Harvard, Mary & Bill and maybe even Yale. That part hasn't changed.
Anyhow, that was the gist of the problem. Read the Declaration of Independence for more details. Some of the grievances sound a little quaint today, like the thing about quartering of soldiers but you have to think like it was 1775. The pot really only boiled over when the British tried to take the arms that the colonists thought were theirs, both in Massachusetts and in Virginia. It was a bad time to be a governor.
Anyhow, that was the gist of the problem. Read the Declaration of Independence for more details. Some of the grievances sound a little quaint today, like the thing about quartering of soldiers but you have to think like it was 1775. The pot really only boiled over when the British tried to take the arms that the colonists thought were theirs, both in Massachusetts and in Virginia. It was a bad time to be a governor.
How to explain the Second Amendment
How to explain the Second Amendment?
While there is a good deal of substantive material in this thread, the other way to respond to the question is as a question of method.
One error advocate often make is to omit the first step of identifying who you are communicating to. If you are hashing an issue out in front of an audience, your first priority is not to convert your opponent, but to persuade the audience. That can make an enormous difference in what you say.
The other error advocate routinely make when they identify an opponent is to fail to identify the basis of their opposition. Knowing why a person might not care for the 2d Am might take some questions and listening. Talking past his position is rarely persuasive to anyone, and may even convince your opponent in conversation that your own position is associated with some level of personal vice.
If you let someone vent about their frustrations and concur on the reasonable ones, you are more likely to receive a genuine hearing for your own.
How to explain the Second Amendment?
While there is a good deal of substantive material in this thread, the other way to respond to the question is as a question of method.
One error advocate often make is to omit the first step of identifying who you are communicating to. If you are hashing an issue out in front of an audience, your first priority is not to convert your opponent, but to persuade the audience. That can make an enormous difference in what you say.
The other error advocate routinely make when they identify an opponent is to fail to identify the basis of their opposition. Knowing why a person might not care for the 2d Am might take some questions and listening. Talking past his position is rarely persuasive to anyone, and may even convince your opponent in conversation that your own position is associated with some level of personal vice.
If you let someone vent about their frustrations and concur on the reasonable ones, you are more likely to receive a genuine hearing for your own.
Hugh Damright
New member
I think I am discussing the topic by commenting on the meaning of the Second Amendment's term "free State", and by commenting on the intent of militia.
Someone said that a "free State" meant individuals in a state of freedom, someone else said that it meant being free from external/foreign threats but not from federal threats. I think it has to do with free government at the state level and state sovereignty. And I think militia was intended to defend our free States against both foreign and domestic threats. I don't see how other people are on topic when they say what they think these things mean, and then I am off topic when I express my opinion.
Last edited:
While the 2nd admendment did not establish militias or the concept thereof, at the same time I cannot see that the right to bear arms was written into the constitution in order to enable revolt against the entity created by it. You, anyone, may think the constitution establishes a loose confederation of states that any could leave if enough people wanted to but clearly that was what it replaced. In any event, that could not be the purpose of the 2nd admendment.
I'm still not certain how I would go about explaining the 2nd admendment to anyone who had never heard of it but it is only one sentence long and it would seem to be wrong to leave anything out, given how short it is already.
I'm still not certain how I would go about explaining the 2nd admendment to anyone who had never heard of it but it is only one sentence long and it would seem to be wrong to leave anything out, given how short it is already.
carguychris
New member
Hugh, perhaps we need to agree on a definition of a "domestic" threat.
For argument's sake, let's say that elements of the US federal government choose to openly and blatantly abrogate the Constitution- the President declares himself "President for Life", and with the help of a junta of US Army generals, marches an army on the capital, forces the Congress and Supreme Court to dissolve, imprisons the congressmen and justices, and replaces them with handpicked US Army officers. If something like this were to happen, the states could then call forth their well-regulated militia to restore a constitutional government. I can agree that the militia clause of the 2A was written with this sort of scenario in mind.
OTOH, if a constitutional federal government is in place, the Congress has the power to call forth and organize the militia under Article I, Section 8 and the President is the militia's commander in chief under Article II, Section 2. Any action by the militia against a duly elected and constitutional federal government is by definition an illegal and treasonous act.
carguychriss said:
I find it unlikely that those who ratified the COTUS had only one opinion on this point. After all, the government against which they had recently taken up arms was a legitimate sovereign whose foremost error was imposing a modest level of taxation in order to pay for war against the colonists enemies.
The idea that a federal government would take more than a quarter of someone's income would have stressed their imagination.
It is a complete fallacy to think that one only had the right to bear arms because they were a member of a militia. A quick look at the history of the founding of our country will help.......
At the time of the founding individuals and familys had firearms and other types of arms, some (a very few) familys even had personally owned cannons. The reason the founding fathers had these weapons was it directly derived from english law and common customs in many places and times throughout anglo saxon history although the concept itself is not solely a anglo saxon idea by any means.
It was and is a inherent right of every individual to be armed so long as they are not under some form of arrest or confinement. These individuals as they had arms and were armed could be called upon to form militias for the defense of any community or state but it was up to the will of the individual to join a militia.
In fact without doing a lot of digging in early american history you can find lots of felons who had no need of expungement to bear arms as the right was absolute and only later became corrupted due to religious or poliical considerations. (Again only once the confinement or arrest was over)
The right to keep and bear arms simply points out that the armed people may indeed form militias and there right to keep and bear arms was not to be infringed.
I personally believe the founding fathers would be horrified to see where we are in this country now on this issue, but thats my opinion, your milage may vary.
carguychris
New member
The problem wasn't taxation in and of itself; the problem was that the English monarchy didn't care what the colonists thought about the taxation, or what they thought about most anything. The American Revolution occurred because the colonists wanted to determine their own destiny.
The Constitution was created because the former colonists wanted a legal and self-determined method by which to resolve grievances without again resorting to war. If one dislikes the level of federal taxation, the constitutional solution is to elect representatives who will legally change it, not to take up arms and depose the federal government!
Agreed; I don't think anyone here is debating that. Most of the last 2 pages of this thread have been dedicated to arguing why the militia clause was even necessary if it doesn't affect the RKBA.
Hugh Damright
New member
In your scenario the feds turn against every State, and every State acts to reel in the feds. But in that scenario the US might as well be one big State, there seems to be no aspect of federalism ... suppose instead that the feds turn against some States in the name of others i.e. a conflict between the States ...
What about this scenario ... the US gets to where the blue States are controlling the government such that 1/4 of the States are ruling over 3/4 of the States ... and the 3/4 of the States call for a constitutional convention and propose and ratify amendments to the US Constitution which are intended to strengthen our federal system so that the minority of the States can't rule over the majority of States ... now suppose that the federal government refuses to respect the properly ratified amendments, because Congress had no say, and it was all done in a purely federal manner with each State having one vote (i.e. they might cry that the people had no voice or some such nonsense) ... and further suppose that the 1/4 of the States contain the majority of citizens, such that they have numerical superiority, and so they resort to force, sending the US military into the 3/4 of the States e.g. Virginia, put us under military rule, and tell us we have no representation in congress or any other rights until we agree that our properly ratified amendments are nullified and we agree to abide by their view of government ... in this scenario, most people might think that we had a constitutional government in place, but most states might see it differently ... if Virginia sees it differently, if Virginians believe that the US federal government chose to openly and blatantly abrogate the US Constitution, then would we be required to submit to US military rule, or would we have a right to resist?
Again, nobody is talking about desposing of the federal government by force. But ... I think it was 25 years before the "civil war" that South Carolina declared that they were justified in secession because of federal taxation. I think it was unfair how the tariffs were such a burden on South Carolina as compared to other States. And the money was going to infrastructure up north. I don't see any way that South Carolina could have resolved this situation by electing different representatives. Of course, again, they said they were justified in secession, they did not say that they were justified in "taking up arms and disposing of the federal government".
A problem with the line of thinking going on here is that in one instance, a red state is only a red state if 51% of the population is, uh, red. Otherwise it get colored in as blue, unless your brother is governor. It is true that the majority rule remains in effect but you can see right away that it isn't that simple. Of course, there has always been much controversy along the way with all these conventions and bills going through congress and state legislatures. Ultimately, it will be rare that everyone is satisfied. There was even controversy in parliment over some of the things being done with regard to the American colonists. And it never helps when some of the things being said are exaggerations, lies or simply being ignored.
Thomas Jefferson said a little revolution now and then is good for the country but he was out of the country when he said that. The immediate problem is, if the people are justified in revolting now and then, is deciding when they are justified and when it is treason. Over the years the problem has come up time and time again, nearly always in a different context, but never over something trivial to be sure. Naturally, who ever is in power at the time will see it as treason or something close to it. And a problem with revolution is that all revolutions, successful or unsuccessful, increase the power of government. And that isn't what you're look for, is it?
Thomas Jefferson said a little revolution now and then is good for the country but he was out of the country when he said that. The immediate problem is, if the people are justified in revolting now and then, is deciding when they are justified and when it is treason. Over the years the problem has come up time and time again, nearly always in a different context, but never over something trivial to be sure. Naturally, who ever is in power at the time will see it as treason or something close to it. And a problem with revolution is that all revolutions, successful or unsuccessful, increase the power of government. And that isn't what you're look for, is it?
cannonfire
New member
That sounds mighty close to the Civil War to me.... oh wait, that is basically what did happen
Anyone here ever bother to read the Confederate constitution? There is a second admendment "imbedded" therein, and most of the others, too.
I think there may be a danger, mild perhaps but still a danger, of not so much misinterpreting the original meaning or intent of the 2nd admendment as maybe misinterpreting the reasons for it to begin with. It seems apparent to me that most of the "assaults on the 2nd admendment" are relatively recent (by which I mean in the last hundred years) and that the original fears which prompted any inclusion of mention of arms have been or had been totally forgotten. We now use the 2nd admendment as an excuse or reason to be able to go about armed so that we can deal with muggers, armed robbers while we are at the corner store, armed students while we are at school, international terrorists while we are at the Mall of America, kidnappers who are discovered when we are on our way to the Mall of America from Fargo, and for road rage. I just wonder if they envisioned such things.
One such en-visionary, Thomas Jefferson, however, I am positive approved of carrying a weapon to deal with creatures of the night. I've even seen it. It's on display in Charlottesville. As for others in his company, I cannot speak. But nevertheless, I can't help but wonder if he thought the second admendment was necessary for that, or for that matter, if the right to carry a concealed weapon was more of a privilege for members of his class only? That would be an interesting question to ask, were it possible.
I think there may be a danger, mild perhaps but still a danger, of not so much misinterpreting the original meaning or intent of the 2nd admendment as maybe misinterpreting the reasons for it to begin with. It seems apparent to me that most of the "assaults on the 2nd admendment" are relatively recent (by which I mean in the last hundred years) and that the original fears which prompted any inclusion of mention of arms have been or had been totally forgotten. We now use the 2nd admendment as an excuse or reason to be able to go about armed so that we can deal with muggers, armed robbers while we are at the corner store, armed students while we are at school, international terrorists while we are at the Mall of America, kidnappers who are discovered when we are on our way to the Mall of America from Fargo, and for road rage. I just wonder if they envisioned such things.
One such en-visionary, Thomas Jefferson, however, I am positive approved of carrying a weapon to deal with creatures of the night. I've even seen it. It's on display in Charlottesville. As for others in his company, I cannot speak. But nevertheless, I can't help but wonder if he thought the second admendment was necessary for that, or for that matter, if the right to carry a concealed weapon was more of a privilege for members of his class only? That would be an interesting question to ask, were it possible.
Aguila Blanca
Staff
Good grief!
I go away for a few days, and this thread is still discussing militias as if the militia clause in any way affects or explains the 2nd Amendment.
Sheesh!
I go away for a few days, and this thread is still discussing militias as if the militia clause in any way affects or explains the 2nd Amendment.
Sheesh!