Is the second amendment obsolete?

It's up to us to promote it's health.
Click to expand...

Well, us and the Supreme Court in the Parker/Heller case. At this point, even if they refuse the case it will have some consequences for federal gun laws at the very least.

If they take up the case, we could get into cases about incorporation under the 14th amendment and, more than likely, that pesky commerce clause again.

I wonder whether Justice Alito can find some way to avoid conflict between his view of federal power over machine guns in the Rybar case and the more recent SC ruling in Raich and Kozinski's revised opinion in Stewart?
 
No, the Founding Fathers wanted the 2nd Amendment to guard against tyranny and lawlessness. Both of these safeguards were the reason IMHO.
Click to expand...
Exactly right, and more.

The 2A reads: "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."

Note the use of "security." The Founding Fathers did not use "defence," which they used as "common defence" twice in the Constitution. They understood the difference between "defence" and "security," which they used only once. You'll find "security" only in the 2A.

To write "the defence of a free State" would indicate a narrow purpose of a militia subservient to a state's control. Given the Founding Fathers' concerns regarding standing armies, that's an untenable position, and that's one reason why the 2A doesn't use "defence." However, that's bascially the anti-gunners' argument.

To write "the security of a free State" would indicate a broad and flexible purpose of a civilian militia that is not subservient to a state's control. It's a much more intelligent, freedom-oriented right that perfectly co-exists with the Founding Fathers' concerns regarding standing armies, and perfectly co-exists with how the rest of the Constitution is written.
 
Publius,
The fact that you specifically cited Parker illustrates the problem.
The entire BoR, the entire Constitution must be supported. Always.
Not just the parts we like, and not just when it's convenient. I'm as staunch a 2nd Amdt supporter as anyone on this forum, but I won't trade any of the others in exchange for it.
Unless we promote politicians who feel the same, we will continue nickle-and-diming ourselves into slavery.
 
To write "the defence of a free State" would indicate a narrow purpose of a militia subservient to a state's control. Given the Founding Fathers' concerns regarding standing armies, that's an untenable position, and that's one reason why the 2A doesn't use "defence." However, that's bascially the anti-gunners' argument.
Click to expand...
It seems to me that preexisting bills of rights, such as the Virginia and Maryland Bills of Rights, referred to the defense of a free State, and the requests for the Second Amendment referred to the defense of a free State, so I don't see what is untenable about it. It was because we had standing British troops here to dominate us that we declared that a standing army in times of peace is a danger, and that the proper defense of a free State is a militia composed of the people of that State. Just because they were against standing armies does not mean they were opposed to State Militia.
 
If those states were representative of the whole, the 2A would use "defence" rather than "security." There is a reason why the wording is different from the rest of the Constitution.
 
I'd say the problem is more of a "creeping fascism." From the very moment that Dodge City asked travelers to turn in their revolvers, someone should have contested The Second and The Tenth. We suffer now when diligence would have served us then.
 
By no means is the 2nd amendment obsolete.

For instance, ever notice that the parts of the country with the worst violent crime rates tend to be populated by people who think armed people are criminal nogoodniks? The areas of the country where the 2nd is treated as obsolete tend to have higher tax rates and excessive gov't regulation compared to the parts where the 2nd is more respected as well.

AS for the 14 points of fascism or a fascist America in 10 easy steps, well the irony of those two pieces is that the authors are too blinded by hatred of Bush to realize that if a Dem wins in '08 they will have two branches of gov't combined with a propensity to regulate, tax, spend, and prohibit firearms. One giant leap forward for American fascism if a Dem president in '09 sits at the controls of government with a friendly legislature driving from the backseat. Unfortunately Bush primed the pump for that situation.
 
Last edited:
Gun-grabbers want you to believe that the 2A is obsolete. They want you to believe that the 2A was meant only to deter tyrannical government, and that a modern police force will keep you from harm.

A liberal friend of mine once told me almost verbatim what I wrote above. Not that he was the first person I had ever heard it from, nor the last. According to him, "We're beyond all that" and "I trust my neighbors."

I countered that if the 2A is obsolete, so is the 1A (the Holy Grail of liberals). If the threat of a tyrannical government no longer exists, you have no need for free political speech. After all, "we're beyond all that." Surprise of all surprises, he didn't agree. But at least we agreed that tyranny still lurks out there.

I then pointed out that he didn't trust his neighbors because he didn't trust people with guns. If you truly trust your neighbors, what difference does it make whether they own guns or not? No response from my friend.

Finally, I pointed out that violent crime is still some 200-300 percent higher today than in 1957. My wife once called 9-1-1 when her ex showed up and began pounding on the door (I was away at the time). 20+ minutes later, about 15 minutes after her ex left, the police showed up. Very helpful, that. Again, no response from my friend.

No, we are not "beyond all that," nor do I "trust [all of] my neighbors." Some of my neighbors are not good people. Do a search of sex offenders on the Internet, and you'll seem them living in your community. By the way, my friend now has two pre-school nieces, and even though he won't discuss the issue anymore, he no longer trusts all his neighbors.

Gun-grabbers want you to believe that the 2A is obsolete so they can render you powerless, dependent, and controllable. But as long as people are people - motivated by greed, power, lust, and sometimes insanity - the 2A will not be obsolete. A well regulated Militia will remain necessary to the security of a free State.
 
Many of the anti-federalists & founders saw the road to tyranny a very real possibility - some even spelled out how it would happen (i.e. a standing army being built on the ruins of the Militia, usurption of power from the people, etc.).

So happens they never put a time-line on it though. Think about how the Miltia has evolved, how this nation & its people have evolved, and how our govt has evolved since 1789/1791 - I think we may be right on schedule.

The intent of the 2nd will never be obsolete, though the amendment itself may be obsoleted by those in power - just so they can grab more.


" Whenever governments mean to invade the rights and liberties of the people, they always attempt to destroy the militia, in order to raise an army upon their ruins." - Rep. Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts
Click to expand...
 
Maybe the OP's question is misdirected. Maybe it's the free State that is becoming obsolete as we creak along our way to greater socialism.
 
I would almost argue that yes- it is obsolete because since 1932, we've been relegated to obsolete weaponry.

On the other hand, I think that because so many people believe it is obsolete, means that it is doing a good job of proving the opposing view. It can't happen here because we have the 2nd.

Now I do believe the 3rd amendment is probably obsolete.
 
Now I do believe the 3rd amendment is probably obsolete.
Click to expand...

You go on thinking that until some 17 year old soldier is quartered in your house, gets drunk on your liquor, runs wild in your neighborhood, and lands you in jail for contributing to the delinquency of a minor. An extreme case, but it could happen without that 3rd amendment.

Now as for me, nope, nuh uh, I definitely don't want a bunch of soldiers living in my domicile against my will, sneering at me for being a mere civilian, snoring at night, eating all the good stuff in the fridge before I get to it, swilling my beer, etc, etc, etc. There's a lot of practical reasons for that amendment, and I haven't even got a pretty teenage daughter to worry about.
 
I agree Confuse, the 3rd Amendment is very relevant.

The British used their military to set up "shop" in areas it felt were hot beds of revolutionary activities. It allowed them to keep a better "view" of the "dissidents". It's definitely a "control" strategy used by armies throughout history.

The mere presence of a controlling military force can thwart dissident activity and that strategy was used quite a bit by the British IIRC.

The 3rd Amendment prohibits this unless there is a bona-aide state of emergency.

The problem was how do you stop this? That's one of the reasons the 2nd Amendment was enacted IMHO. And it precedes the 3rd Amendment.;)
 
The 2nd obsolete??? HA...the entire BOR is obsolete! The birth of this nation represented a fluke in the last 5000 yrs of human civilization and to this day is still a fluke. It amazes me how we have lasted so long. Most nations operate on a socialistic, oligarchic, or autocratic basis, where individual free will (the essence of the BOR) is subject to elimination. Even the 51st state to the north :rolleyes: can eliminate its constitution by a simple majority vote.

Maybe what we are witnessing is just the inevitable result of the human condition, which is dictated by pure self interest or self preservation. People care only about themselves and their own interests. If I could sum it all up in one word, it would be APATHY.

Freedom really is a matter of perspective, and every person has his/her own view about what constitutes a partition between a free society and a tyrannical society. The proof can simply be found on this forum.



Curiosity yields evolution...satiety yields extinction.
 
The People: 1st, 2nd, 4th, 9th, 10th, Preamble. If you do not "VOTE" you are not worth a !!!!. You are not a productive citizen of this country. YOU ARE A TAKER, living off the sweat and idea's of others. As you can tell, I am not politically correct. I have worked the polls for years, so I have heard all of your lame excuses for not voting. For you that do "VOTE". THANK YOU!!! and what do you think?
 
If you do not "VOTE" you are not worth a !!!!. You are not a productive citizen of this country. YOU ARE A TAKER, living off the sweat and idea's of others. As you can tell, I am not politically correct. I have worked the polls for years, so I have heard all of your lame excuses for not voting. For you that do "VOTE". THANK YOU!!! and what do you think?
Click to expand...

So I have to vote even if my choice is between a Giant Douche and a Turd Sandwich. Hmmmm :confused:.




Curiosity yields evolution...satiety yields extinction.
 
There's an interesting article in the current issue of American Handgunner that got me thinking: defense of our liberty via the 2nd Amendment is only useful if we have societal support. What will make people back you up if you have to defend yourself from oppression? Will they even do that instead of dismissing you as a loony? Say for example the state or the fed outlaws your ownership of a Bible for instance. So a SWAT team shows up to forcibly take it from you. You fight back. You beat them back and/or put them all on the ground. Then what? How do you WIN? How do you make it stop? Will anything make it stop? What happens that makes you not simply another maniac that gets mowed down by the backup that comes? What makes the headline not read something to the effect of "Attempt to repress religious freedom met with force" instead of "Police kill violent fanatical gunman" ? Has there ever been a case where "the Man" gives up and says "Oh crap. Ya know what, you're right and we messed up...and this is too much of a pain in the neck to go after anyway. You win." or "We can't keep fighting this guy, he's too popular. Everyone seems to think he's right, and he might be. OK, call off the dogs, we gotta let this one go." ?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top