Purpose of the second amendment?

I noted it was an anomaly in the Bill of Rights. Of the 10, only the second felt the need to use some kind of justification/purpose A to delineate right B.
Click to expand...


Again, it is not an anomaly, it is not a justification/purpose for some actual right to be enumerated later, it is a declaration of a right.

The Maryland BOR, drafted in 1776, says:

"Art. 28. That a well regulated Militia is the proper and natural defence of a free Government."

There it is. It stands alone. It is a declaration of a right.

The grammatical analysis approach to the Second Amendment never seems to allow one to see the forest for the trees. The answer is in the rules of free government, not in the rules of grammar.
 
This was a toothless attack by a cartoonist. That's amusing.
Click to expand...
Toothless? Hardly to those to whom it was directed.

I noted it was an anomaly in the Bill of Rights. Of the 10, only the second felt the need to use some kind of justification/purpose A to delineate right B.
Click to expand...
Really? Then could you explain the anomaly of the preamble to the Constitution? Or better yet, this one:

To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;

The highlighted portion is the justification clause.

[note: The Supreme Court has ruled that the subordinate clause does not modify the power expressed in the independent clause.]

As I have tried to explain, it is only an anomaly to us of the 21st century... Not to those who did the writing.

You clearly did and do not see the humor in the cartoon.
Click to expand...
Strange that we don't share the same response to "humor," is it not?

Or, said in another way:

What one may find humorous, another may find objectionable.
 
[note: The Supreme Court has ruled that the subordinate clause does not modify the power expressed in the independent clause.]
Click to expand...
WAKE UP! That's why it is a toothless attack.

As I have tried to explain, it is only an anomaly to us of the 21st century... Not to those who did the writing.
Click to expand...

Listen, we're not talking about changing perception from time of the writing to now. We're not talking about the constitution compared to other documents. We're not even talking about the preamble. I was saying, and will say it again: the 2nd amendment is the only one in the bill of rights that uses this clause. Play the Sesame Street game "One of these things is not like the other" and that's why it is an anomaly.

For this reason, people that wish to limit personal gun rights tune into it and key on that phrase, and as has been exhaustively demonstrated already here in this thread, THAT IS INEFFECTIVE. That this cartoon accuses "Originalists" of rewriting the meaning and intent of the 2nd, when in fact focusing on the justification clause and putting too much stock in it itself is IRONICAL.

Totally fine that you don't find this amusing. Frankly, it is frightening that there is defensiveness and paranoia. Keep your fingers off the trigger, fellas. Not every statement is an attack.

If you find yourself in a gun fight and someone points out that your opponent is firing blanks, yes he is still your opponent and attacking you, but you can also look back at it later and laugh. Of course, in order to see the humor, one must have the ability to step back from the situation.
 
I could understand the turn this debate has taken if we were talking about some obscure text from a dead language. I even understand what you are doing with your analysis here.

But...

As late as 1960 there was pretty much ZERO doubt as to what the 2nd meant. Sure there were superfluous debates and the constant nay sayers. I'm sure they have been at it since it was written. But the VAST majority of people clearly understood it's meaning. The culture has changed. The last war to threaten us is clear only in the minds of aging Vets (God bless 'em). When you go down this road, more and more people don't/won't/can't see the need for arms and will try to jerk around with the interpretations or pretty much anything they can in order to get it seen THEIR way. They have a loud shrill voice that is amplified by the media they control. And as much as I would hate it, if they ever become the majority, we are going to lose big time.

The gun debate flat out gives the anti side the advantage. If you look at the abortion issue it's the same thing.

Pro Life side - Hey, we want everyone to live and have a shot at life.

Pro Choice side - Hey! We want choice, control over our bodies, etc. And, oh yeah, people (or fetuses depending on your view) are going to die as a result of this. Just no getting around that ugly fact.

Now lets look at guns.

Pro gun - We need these for self defense! To protect our Liberty and national safety! And, oh yeah, because we have it our way, people are going to die.

Anti gun - They're all evil and made for killing. Take them away and no one will die from them!

Now, before you jump all over me. The above was simplistic, not complex or complete like the gun debate really is. I did that to illustrate the point of which one looks prettier. Everyone (mostly) wants life for all. It's fundamental in our country. If the side you are on even LOOKS like it falls better into that category, then you have the advantage. One thing I doubt our founding fathers would have argued about is that the need for arms of ANY kind was a tragic necessity and I would bet any of them would have given anything in order to make it not be that way. If you protect Liberty with force, it's probably going to cost lives. If you protect your nation with force, it's probably going to cost lives. If you protect yourself with force, it's probably going to cost lives. And yes, I understand that the threat of force saves lives. It only does that because someone demonstrated it by a loss of life at some time.

The debate will NEVER look pretty for our side. The 2nd is there specifically to say that we will preserve our rights and way of life through the use of lethal force if necessary. People used to understand that THAT was the cost of freedom. They accepted it and it was a hard responsibility to bear. In today's irresponsible world where people want the government to be their be all and end all, that's no longer the case.

Somebody show me how to make the 2nd Amendment smell good. Please!

I don't think you can unless you look at it from the point of view of it's original intent.

Unless you are the person defending your family or home or nation and have had to fire the shot that took the life of the person coming to do harm to you or yours. That's the only time it smells good. REAL good. And, IMHO, may make you sick at the same time.

It's only there because of the nature of mankind. Take it away and eventually oppression or invasion will take us out as a nation or crime will as individuals. Nobody should want it. We should realize we desperately need it though.
 
Frankly, it is frightening that there is defensiveness and paranoia.
Click to expand...
There is defensiveness and paranoia because they are out to get my firearms. They are out to make me defenseless. The fact that you find this frightening tells more about where you actually stand on gun issues than almost anything else you have said.
Keep your fingers off the trigger, fellas.
Click to expand...
That, above, is the most telling thing. Even if said in jest, SecDef.

You have just painted yourself a proponent of gun control.

Groundhog, good words. It will however, be lost upon some who post here.
 
That, above, is the most telling thing. Even if said in jest, SecDef.

You have just painted yourself a proponent of gun control.
Click to expand...

So now you are going fishing?

No, I'm saying you are overly anxious and have raised your personal alert level when the threat in fact has no fangs. Even when it was explained to you. In detail. Finger off the trigger. Relax your white knuckles. Become aware of your surroundings and that nobody is attacking you requiring action.

I've already stated my position very clearly, and yet you still feel the need to mis-characterize it.
 
The 2 Clauses of the 2nd

I think it's a moot point whether the miltia reference is a preamble to the main point ("Right to Bear Arms") or whether the militia is the particular topic of the amdendment. Either way it gives "The Right to Bear Arms". In the first reading, that's obvious. In the second reading, it simply focuses on one reason "Bearing Arms" is crucial - and that reason is the collective good of preventing tyanny - because that is the purpose and topic of all the amendments. The 4th Amendment - in specifing that people are protected from unnecesary Search and Seizure by the Government - does not imply it's fine if burglars break in an Sieze your property.

What the 2nd DOES NOT DO - is prohibit private use of arms. Nor - as I mentioned previously - is there any historical records that everyone simply stopped hunting, defending themselves, target shooting etc when the 2nd was ratified.
Given the Founders were their contemporaries, they would have known - or have been told - if a sudden prohibition was now the order of the day.
This was a non-issue until 50 - 60 years ago. The "problem" does not lie in the Bill of Rights, it resides in the mind of those arguing against it
 
Last edited:
-Let's consider the actual history. There was a bunch of illegal immigrants that came here in some boats and took over what we now know as America.
-At first a few scattered settlements, then many. These people were a long ways away from their Motherland and decided they could govern themselves.
-Unfair taxes was a rally point so a war was fought to end taxes.
-And the first act of the new government here was to make the people pay taxes to cover the war cost.
-A new government needs laws so along comes a few guys and wrote the Constitution.
-The Second Amendment says the people can protect themselves. Mainly because if you needed help you had to do it yourself any way. And in most cases even today, 911 will only be 20 minutes after it's too late so it's a good idea to be able to help yourself.
 
Best quote I've ever seen on the subject:

With guns we are citizens. Without guns we are subjects. Be very, very grateful that you live in a time and place where you can kid yourself about the importance of this distinction. Very few people throughout history have shared your luck.
Click to expand...
 
"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms.
The strongest reason for the people to retain the
right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort,
to protect themselves against tyranny in government." -
Thomas Jefferson, June 1776. ;)
 
Nearly 3 centuries ago the 2nd amendment was written into our constitution enabling citizens to protect themselves from the natives. Now nearly 3 hundred years later with all the progress we have made as a nation, as well as the understanding that the United States of America is the greatest nation that has ever been in the history of the world. Combined with thousands upon thousands of martyrs who have given their lives for us, their children enabling us to live free. We still have the right to bare arms in order to protect ourselves from the natives. I thank my god.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top