The Case for 2nd Amendment

R

RC20

New member
I think in all the huppla going on, we as a group are forgetting and missing some significant points.

Its the 2nd Amendment, not the third, 4th or the tenth. The founders found it important enough that it was the Second only to freedom of speech, assembly, freedom of the press (the Pen is mightier than the sword)

I firmly believe that (be it right or wrong for modern times) that the 2nd has two elements to it.
1. The inherent right to own arms
2. A civic duty to be prepared to exercise the duty to combat tyranny via a local militia (not to be taken lightly, but the basis of the US as a country was revolution ). Inherent in in the 2nd is also supporting the US in time of crisis and the AR is the modern equivalent of the musket.
As times have changed the interpretation of the Amendment has been ruled on (wrongly at times but ruled never the less). Freedom of the press means blogs now in electronic form not printed media. Wire taps require a search warrant the same as a house would have in the 1700s.
The AR is not evil, it is the gun of choice of the US armed forces and it would be the gun we would need to be familiar with to fulfill that duty.

Read the book, "Living With Guns". You may not like all you read, but it is overall well balanced and a very good basis of discussion.

Do not take the view that there is no discussion. The Constitution does allow amendments and ultimately the nation may choose to change the constitution whether we like it or not. If you are going to maintain the 2nd Amendment right, then it needs to be persuasive conversation, not coercive. All right have limits and we are in the throes of a serious one on the 2nd.

Your fellow citizens do have a FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHT that needs to be respected. They are fellow citizens, not the enemy.
 
RC20 said:
Its the 2nd Amendment, not the third, 4th or the tenth. The founders found it important enough that it was the Second only to freedom of speech, assembly, freedom of the press (the Pen is mightier than the sword)
Click to expand...

You flunked the history test right there.

The original Bill of Rights contained 12 amendments. The first 2 were not enacted by the time the other ten were passed. What we know as the 2A was, in actuality, the 4th amendment on the list. What we call the 1st, was the 2nd on the list. The actual 2nd article of amendment was eventually ratified (in 1992) and became our 27th amendment.

Who is going to give any credence to the rest of what you say, when you have just proved yourself to be uninformed from the outset?

The Second Amendment is 2nd, only because of happenstance.

Source: The Original Bill of Rights
 
Al, you are countering a priority argument with a chronology argument. Apples and oranges. It could be argued that the revision may have been about organizing by priority and not chronology; or, it could be happenstance.

I don't know, but in this instance your concise argument requires supplemental reading for me to figure out if you are correct...
 
Perhaps, but such an argument, if encountering someone who knows a modicum of history, will be laughed at and dismissed out of hand.

Ask me how I know? :D
 
No I did not follow the debate at the time and its an area I can learn from.

And my point is proven, sneer at someone rather than inform and then you expect to prevail.

Regardless, it is the 2nd and even if it had wound up the 4th its valid that it was high on the list and that it was even there proves that it was uppermost in the rights the founders felt was needed to ensure it was a viable basis for this country.

What I will tell you is you can engage someone in a discussion and when you do, a surprising number will then at least give credence and think about what you think and feel.


Or you can call someone scum and make sure there is no discussion.

I know what works. Sticking to stupid cast in concrete talking points gets us gridlock ala Le Piere. A discussion can get us someplace.

Get enough people ****** off and the Constitution can be amended in a direction you do not care for, but as the process is fully legal and part of the basis for it, you will have to live with it.

I prefer not to see that. But keep in mind, they are citizens of the United States and they have every much a right to not only say what they think but to change and act on it and if you truly believe in the Constitution then you have to not only respect that but support it.

While its heresy by many, I have no issue with magazine limitations. No, I do not think it is a full answer, but I think it would help if a nut case had to switch magazines and I think its beyond disingenuous for LaPierre to say it would make no difference that a magazine switch is not big deal. That in turn defies logic that we then don't need large magazines and we are dealing with nut cases who in many instances do not even practice and can't do a fast magazine change (or fu bar it up and benefit the situation and save lives ).

Where you draw the lines is worth discussion. There is no reason for a 30 round magazine aka glock. Is a 20 or 10 magazine limit worth discussion for an AR? I think it is.

Would it stop it, no, would it be true in all cases where 30 rounders can be had, again no. But it might in some cases and it might sway enough people that a compromise that losses gun owners nothing and we are willing to be reached and that would in turn help convince people that other avenues are more viable.

We do live in an age where minds change. I saw the gay rights issue go from total disgust and persecution to where most people think they should be allowed to be married.

The 2nd amendment unless rationally defended can go the same way. Not tomorrow, but over time.
 
There absolutely is a reason for a 30 round magazine such as a Glock or an AR-15 has.

The reason is to match the 30 round magazine that an M-4 has.

Never miss the point. The second amendment was written for one purpose. It was written so that the people of this nation would possess the ability to fight if necessary. That implies killing.

I would hope that prevailing in a conflict was implied and that symbolic gestures of resistance were not the full scope of their intent.
 
Actually, there is some merit to the argument that the BoR Amendments are organized in order of priority. I'll have to go back and do some digging, but I remember reading at least one decision in law school on that point.
 
James Madison originally proposed 20 revisions to the Constitution to Congress on June 8, 1789. The 7th of Madison's proposed revisions dealt with the RKBA.

Madison's proposal was to add to, delete from, or modify the actual text of the Constitution. Therefore, his revisions were presented in the order in which topics fit within the structure of the existing Constitution. The revision dealing with the RKBA was the 4th of 10 revisions to be inserted between the 3rd and 4th clauses of Article 1, Section 9 (limits on Congressional powers).

Members of Congress objected to changing the text of the Constitution and Madison's revisions were rewritten as separate Amendments to supplement the Constitution. The House of Representatives rejected Madison's proposal regarding the preamble to the Constitution and concatenated some other revisions. The RKBA was the 5th of 17 proposed Amendments approved by the House and submitted to the Senate.

Congress submitted 12 amendments to the states in 1789. The 4th proposed amendment dealt with the RKBA.
 
Actually, there is some merit to the argument that the BoR Amendments are organized in order of priority. I'll have to go back and do some digging, but I remember reading at least one decision in law school on that point.
Click to expand...
It makes no sense to me ... from what I've seen of the requests for the original amendments, I'd say that the Tenth Amendment was the highest priority.

I have heard it suggested that the amendments are in an order which corresponds to the declarations of power which they are intended to limit. There were twelve original amendments proposed to the States for ratification, and the first (which failed) regarded representation i.e. Article One:Section Two. And the second (which failed) regarded compensation i.e. Article One:Section Six. And the next four, which passed and became our First-Fourth Amendments, fit in with the restraints on Congress found in Article One:Section Nine.
 
If the original Bill of Rights was organized by priority, it's somewhat amusing that the original Second Amendment dealt with, umm, compensation for Senators and Representatives -- ahead of freedom of speech, religion, and the right to bear arms.

Article the second [27th Amendment - Ratified 1992]
No law, varying the compensation for the services of the Senators and Representatives, shall take effect, until an election of Representatives shall have intervened.​
http://usgovinfo.about.com/blfirstbor.htm
 
Actually, that is a pretty good indicator of the founders' concerns about the tendency of governments toward corruption.

The way it reads, you can vote yourself a pay raise, but you have to get reelected, after voting for it, before you can collect.

Make reps think long and hard about pay raises, when they might vote themselves out of a job and never see an extra dime.
 
Last edited:
It's also an indicator of the tendency of those in power to leave the possibility of corruption open, inasmuch as it wasn't ratified until 1992.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top