What does the 2nd mean to you?

D

Dead

New member
I would like like to hear everyone opinion on what the Second Amendment translates to, and why the founding father desided we NEEDED it in the Bill Of Rights.

I think that the 2nd means that we can own / carry (at will) any firearm, explosive, or crew serviced arms, or "other types of arms".

2nd was placed in the Bill Of Rights, because without it, the people would have no recourse if the "Government" desided that the People had no right to freedom.


Ok lets hear what you people think.

------------------
-AoW[t]-Dead [Black Ops]
 
It means, at a bare minimum, I get to own an M-16. More than that, it establishes the primacy of Militia duty as the basis for individual RKBA. In other words, the 2nd isn't exclusionary (doesn't say that the only reason for the INDIVIDUAL RKBA is to serve as part of the Militia) but it does establish that OBLIGATION as the primary reason for spelling out the right as part of the BOR.
 
It means that I am free and unlike my parents I can answer the middle of the night knock at my door with a bang rather than a wimper.

It means that I have a right to own and carry anything I choose to own and carry. They put it in there cause they just got done kicking an opressive King in the balls and wanted to make sure that if the need ever arose they or their children could do it again. Also they set up a form of government that was purposely designed to be slow and cumbersome so that it could not turn into the monster we have to deal with today. Given this design, they probably didnt want the people to be left at the mercy of a slow moving monster, but rather to be able to handle immediate things for themselves.

------------------
"Liberty is never unalienable; it must be redeemed regularly with the blood of patriots or it always vanishes."
-R.A. Heinlein
 
One of the fears of some of the Founders what that the ability to control and equip the militia (ie citzens) also meant that they could be unequiped. Mason and Henry. If each man could not be disbarred the use and ownership of arms, they could not be disarmed by the gov't. The militia was a resource pool for both state gov't and federal gov't and for themselves. Very much in line with the power being drawn from the people.

The militia was NOT an organization to be banded or disbanded. National Guard is NOT the militia. If it is, they can be disarmed by being disbanded or not equiped - the very fear of some Framers.

It means we can own M-16's, .22's,M-1's, lever actions, laser pistols etc....
 
The 2nd means that even after all the other articles included for ratification of the Constitution, it was known that the few States would not have ratified it without guarantee of protection from government.

Meaning that there was reason for suspicion of any government given the powers as defined in the Consstitution. There certainly was suspicion on the part of the current lawmakers(Founders) of the day.

I think the real question should be, "Why include language to include ownership of armsby the people?"
The Federalist papers reveals statements made by many participants in the debate of what to include in the Articles, specifically why the Articles were included for ratification.
 
What does the 2nd mean to me?

It ensures that I have choices, and the freedom to make them....

------------------
...defend the 2nd.
No fate but what we make...
 
Power extends from the muzzle of a gun.

- Chairman Mao Tse Tung

THAT is why we have a 2nd Amendment.

Chinese dissidents mowed down by tanks in Tiananmen Square without the ability to resist a government that denies them their basic, human rights on a daily basis.

THAT is why we have a 2nd Amendment.

Over 100 million political dissidents and their supporters murdered around the world by their governments in this century alone.

THAT is why we have a 2nd Amendment.

"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."

It is the ultimate safeguard when all else fails.

We have the soap box, the ballot box, the jury box, and then the cartridge box.

It means that the government cannot deny me my basic rights without running the risk of me rising up forcibly against it. And one well-armed and well-trained individual who has some determination can do a LOT of damage.

It means that anyone who tries to harm me and my family is going to have his hands full, and probably his torso as well.

It is the defining line between a citizen and a subject. It sets apart one who can have his own free will from one who has to obtain the state's permission to blow his nose.

It is the essence of freedom, and the mechanism by which freedom is preserved, or restored should it ever be lost.
 
Well, the meaning really did change a bit in 1867 with the passage of the 14th Amendment (or was it '68? whatever...).

The original meaning was to allow citizens to prevent civil rights abuses by the central Federal gov't, AND to fend for the national defense without resorting to a standing army that is potentially a major force for tyranny.

That's in *addition* to personal and family defense, hunting, target shooting, what we might call "all lawful purposes".

However, in the period prior to the civil war, the RKBA was interpreted as being in the hands of the same body of people that had political rights such as voting service, jury service, militia service. White males, basically. That's how they justified disarming blacks, see also the infamous Dred Scott decision where a justification for preventing black citizenship was that doing so would give them the RKBA and the court felt that this was so obviously laughable, it shot holes in the whole idea of full black freedom.

After the civil war when the abolitionists were pretty much vindicated, the 14th Amendment and it's companion Civil Rights Act legislation did something weird: it split the political rights of voting from the personal civil right of RKBA. Blacks were, as a planned result of the 14th and the companion legislation, given "civil rights" *including* the RKBA but still denied voting rights...a direct comparison was made with white women, who like the newly freed slaves had civil rights such as RKBA, free speech and habeus corpus but still lacked the vote. Part of the reason was that white abolitionist women had been disarmed by law while at the same time threatened by racist mob violence (in both the North and South).

This strong RKBA element wasn't discussed all that much in legslative debates because even in the North (the only ones involved at that point) arming blacks was controversial. But it WAS discussed, and they knew exactly what they were doing.

In other words, in addition to the original meaning planned out by the 18th century founders, the 19th century reconstructionists added a more personal "defense from criminals and mobs" element to the 2nd Amendment.

I personally feel more kinship with this reconstructed view. Especially since I live in a mostly-black town that's been specifically disarmed via illegal agreement between my Sheriff and PD Chief, and that same Sheriff gives CCW permits to wealthy white campaign contributors who have a stated need to drive through my town on occasion. No, I'm not kidding, see my site below.

SOURCE: Akhim Amar, Yale law professor, author of "The Bill Of Rights". Also a capsule overview of Stephen Hallbrook's "That Every Man Be Armed" by Clayton Cramer - per Clayton, Stephen makes exactly the same point as Amar, that the 2nd was "redirected" specifically towards free blacks after the civil war which makes the Supreme Court's lack of support for the 2nd a "double joke" - it's an individual right that was redirected against the states. The latter part is as critical as the former.

Jim
Equal Rights for CCW Home Page http://www.ninehundred.com/~equalccw

[This message has been edited by Jim March (edited July 29, 2000).]
 
Everyone looks at an issue differently. All political issues are like the chicken and the Egg... One person believes the chicken comes first.. another that the egg does.... Both believe so strongly on their positions that they are willing to die for it. The 2nd means that all of our opinions have equal weight. No one, nor group of people can force their opinions down the throats of others without a very high cost attached to it. It guarantees that each of us will respect the opinions of others.

In other words it is the guarantee of freedom.



------------------
Richard

The debate is not about guns,
but rather who has the ultimate power to rule,
the People or Government.
RKBA!
 
Back when I was a kid going through the public school system, I took a course called "Civics." The short description of the Constitution and Bill of Rights was that it "was rule of the majority with the consent of the minority." Flash back to the state of Everyman in Europe in general and Britain in particular. Hunting was restricted to nobility. Guns were carried only my the military, constables, and nobility. Social order ensured Everyman would stay where he was. The Second Amendment loudly proclaimed that in America Everyman was just as important as constables, military, and nobility. European social order was inverted. Everyman in American was the top of the heap. Constables, military, and nobility could coerce Everyman but at some point there would be a price to pay.

My view of the Anti-2 movement is that it is a modern attempt to re-establish European social order. The Second Amendment is nothing less than the fail safe of the Constitution. It places in the hands of Everyman the ability to fend off tyranny should it become necessary. No firearms, no opposition.

------------------
Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice. Moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue.

Barry Goldwater--1964
 
It means exactly what it says.

It means that the states are more secure when the people, uninfringed, posess and carry arms.

It means that the right cannot be restricted in any way. (Like any right, one may be appropriately punished for abuse of that right.)

It means everyone has that right.
 
It means that I, an indivdual, own my own life and property, not the State. It means that I am NOT a serf ("of the earth," therefore belonging totally to the King), nor am I a subject, nor a peasant or slave. I am a free man.

It means that I am not only responsible for my own safety, but am responsible for my actions.

I will never give my firearms up. Anyone who comes to take them is a traitor to his/her sworn oath. Anyone who orders them to do so, is also a traitor to his/her sworn oath.

That's what the Second, and the Bill of Rights (1st ten) mean to me. J.B.



[This message has been edited by Jay Baker (edited July 30, 2000).]
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top