Is the second amendment obsolete?

[Hugh Damright]

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.

The cops come to enforce a law you are defying and you shoot them all? I don't think the Second Amendment is about resisting arrest in such a manner. I think it has to do with the people of Alabama controlling the government of Alabama, not through individuals shooting police and such, but by a State Militia composed of the people and able to stand up against other forces.

If the feds banned Bibles and were sending federal police to Alabama to confiscate all Bibles, I think the Second Amendment plan would be for Alabama to nullify the law or secede, and if the feds sent troops down, to meet them at the State line.

 

[Charles S]

The cops come to enforce a law you are defying and you shoot them all? I don't think the Second Amendment is about resisting arrest in such a manner. I think it has to do with the people of Alabama controlling the government of Alabama, not through individuals shooting police and such, but by a State Militia composed of the people and able to stand up against other forces.

If the feds banned Bibles and were sending federal police to Alabama to confiscate all Bibles, I think the Second Amendment plan would be for Alabama to nullify the law or secede, and if the feds sent troops down, to meet them at the State line.

Considering the fact that the individuals who constructed the Constitution were the same group that had just overthrown a tyrannical government as individuals and a group of loosely federated states, I think your view is rather naive.

While I agree that the intent was not the resistance of an individual it is the threat of the collective largely. The threat of a large armed civilian resistance was the original intent of the second amendment.

Go back and read the writings of the framers of the Constitution. I think you will change your mind.

 

[Hugh Damright]

I've read quite a bit about and by the Framers, but I don't remember them saying anything like "if an individual thinks a law is unconstitutional, then he should murder anyone who comes to enforce it". The way I understand it, their approach was secession, and I said in my post that the intent was nullification and secession, not individuals taking it upon themselves to decide when its time to start shooting. If there is something in particular that you think defies my assertion, then maybe you can provide it here, rather than some general comment to "go read the writings of the Framers", as if you know more about it than I do, which I doubt very seriously.

 

[homefires]

No the 2nd is not awash! They are trying to circumvent it with obscure rulings and laws.

Even with out the 2nd, I have to answer to a higher power on the issues of self preservation.

Thanks to Lincoln! Succession is no longer a option. This was the beginning of the Federalist over reaching their authority.

The States are no longer in power of there own grounds or lands. Federal laws take president over state laws. If the states press there issues, the Feds take away the carrots and beans.

I would love to see some state reject any and all Federal funds, Collections of Federal Taxes, Close all corredores and declare Sovereignty. That would be a wake up call, Eaaaaa?

 

[Charles S]

as if you know more about it than I do, which I doubt very seriously.

I am quite certain you are much more knowledgeable about it than I am....

Thomas Jefferson: "The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes....Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man. Thomas Jefferson's "Commonplace Book," 1774-1776, quoting 18th century criminologist Cesare Beccaria in Chapter 40 of "On Crimes and Punishment", 1764.

Thomas Jefferson: "A strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species of exercises, I advise the gun. While this gives moderate exercise to the body, it gives boldness, enterprise and independence to the mind. Games played with the ball, and others of that nature, are too violent for the body and stamp no character on the mind. Let your gun therefore be your constant companion of your walks." Thomas Jefferson to Peter Carr, 1785. The Writings of Thomas Jefferson, (Memorial Edition) Lipscomb and Bergh, editors.

Thomas Jefferson: "The Constitution of most of our states (and of the United States) assert that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed."

John Adams: "Arms in the hands of citizens may be used at individual discretion in private self defense." (A defense of the Constitution of the US)

George Mason: "To disarm the people is the most effectual way to enslave them." (3 Elliot, Debates at 380)

Noah Webster: "Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed, as they are in almost every country in Europe."

George Washington: "A free people ought to be armed."

Richard Henry Lee, Virginia delegate to the Continental Congress, Initiator of the Declaration of Independence, and member of the first Senate, which passed the Bill of Rights: "To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them."

Patrick Henry: "Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined...The great object is that every man be armed. Everyone who is able might have a gun."

It is quite obvious that you are right...when Patric Henry wrote force then he really meant succession.

Its just that quotes like the above......make me believe that the 2nd amendment is an individual write not a collective write.

Further it seems that the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia felt that the 2nd amendment is an individual write, but I am sure you are much more knowledge than any Appeals Court Justice also...LOL

Please feel free to provide some documentation that supports your belief that the founding fathers felt that succession was the key to freedom, not an individually armed society. Since you are so knowledgeable that should not prove to be too difficult a task.

 

[HarrySchell]

The majority opinion of Parker is a good place to start if you want to read what the Founders thought.

The inalienable right to keep and bear arms flows from the right to effective self-defense. This right is an individual right, and the words "arms", "keep" and "bear" are terms of art which predate the US BoR and the broad use of firearms in law and philosophy which relate to self-defense.

The militia is in the same vein, recognizing a single individual must ally with others on a semi-pro basis to deal with some threats, among them tyranny by the established government. It is an expression of the individual right to self-defense on a community scale. Communities are composed of individuals, it is the individuals who will be oppressed.

The militia is a collective expression of the individual right, not some "collective" concept that ignores individual rights. That a militia could exist derives from the active enforcement of the individual right.

On this basis, 2A will be as relevant when firearms are obsolete as it is today. It is unlikely that someone could reasonably ever conclude an individual does not have a right to effective self-defense. Doesn't matter what threats are out there. It is an inalienable right that vests with a person, an expression of the value of a human soul and a commitment to freedom.

 

[Charles S]

HarrySchell,

Great post...great articulation.

 

[Hugh Damright]

Its just that quotes like the above......make me believe that the 2nd amendment is an individual write not a collective write.

You seem to be confusing the individual RKBA with the collective right to alter/abolish government.

I don't read any of the quotes you provided as being intended to say that an individual has a right to take it upon himself to decide when government has gone too far and to start shooting. I understand Patrick Henry to be saying that the whole people should be armed so that they, the whole people, can judge when government has gone too far and resort to force to bend government to their will. I don't think he was trying to say that every man should be armed so that each individual could decide for himself when government went too far and start shooting.

Further it seems that the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia felt that the 2nd amendment is an individual write, but I am sure you are much more knowledge than any Appeals Court Justice also...LOL

Is it your assertion that the court ruled that an individual has a right to decide when government has gone too far and to start shooting?? I don't see where you're going with this ... nor do I see how you can think that one ruling in one district makes you right LOL... isn't it still a fact under constitutional law that the Second Amendment only limits the federal government?

Please feel free to provide some documentation that supports your belief that the founding fathers felt that succession was the key to freedom, not an individually armed society. Since you are so knowledgeable that should not prove to be too difficult a task.

I believe that the right to alter or to abolish government includes a right of secession and was seen as a key to freedom, and that it was seen as requiring an individually armed society (organized into well regulated militia), so I don't know why you are trying to turn these two things against each other ... I believe that an armed society is a key to freedom, but not so that individuals can decide for themselves when government has gone too far and start murdering cops for upholding the law. And I don't see how you can question if the founders thought that secession was a key to freedom, when their whole cause was secession from Great Britain.

"a majority of the community hath an indubitable, inalienable, and indefeasible right to reform, alter, or abolish it [secede], in such manner as shall be judged most conducive to the public weal." -Virginia Declaration of Rights

"whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it [secede], 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. -Declaration of Independence"

These great rights were declared in the spirit of secession, at our founding, when we seceded from Great Britain ... I am having trouble grasping how you could think that it would be difficult to provide some documentation that supports the belief that the founding fathers felt that secession was the key to freedom.

 

[Hugh Damright]

It is an expression of the individual right to self-defense on a community scale.

I believe the object of the Second Amendment is to secure free government, which makes it more than just a collective expression of an individual right to self defense ... it makes it a collective expression of the collective right of self government. I think that is really my point here ... an individual has a right to use deadly force to defend his person, but he does not have a right to use deadly force to defend his view of government ... in contrast, the people of a free state do have a collective right to use deadly force (as a last resort) to defend their view of government.

 

[Justme]

You are arguing way over our collective heads now.

 

[alan]

If it is held that The Second Amendement is "obsolete", one wonders as to which other constitutional rights might become so held. This might be something to think about.

 

[Yellowfin]

I believe the object of the Second Amendment is to secure free government, which makes it more than just a collective expression of an individual right to self defense ... it makes it a collective expression of the collective right of self government. I think that is really my point here ... an individual has a right to use deadly force to defend his person, but he does not have a right to use deadly force to defend his view of government ... in contrast, the people of a free state do have a collective right to use deadly force (as a last resort) to defend their view of government.

If you read my post in its entirety, you'd gain from it that the two become one in the same thing when said government comes after you. Self defense is not limited to simply individual aggressors. The founders were clear that government can be and occasionally is the very villain from which to defend oneself, and the standard for which to use lethal force is exactly that for defending against individual criminals: when your life and property are put in danger and you have no choice but to act in such manner. It is not about views it is about reality. About defending your person, your family, your property, and your way of life against coercive alteration in a situation that you yourself did not initiate. It is not simply voting by bullets. It may be about adjusting balance of power to correct what you might call a failure of democracy in so much as the safety of the people from government which is established by law is breached. The law is in place to do that just as much as it is to keep one person safe from others.

 

[HarrySchell]

Echoing Yellowfin, freedom begins with EFFECTIVE self-defense at the individual level.

A fascist or marxist government seeks to run people's lives, abrogating freedom at the individual level in meeting purely the needs of the state as determined by the political class, whatever it costs individuals.

While the response might be collective via a militia, the goal is to end such predation and restore freedom to the individual of his life, liberty and pursuit (not attainment) of happiness, which does entail respect for property rights, among other rights in the BoR.

There is more to life than great medical care...that's why people leave Cuba.