Why we have the 2nd Amendment.

[Prof Young]

So had opportunity to talk to a young man who works for a democratic liberal congresswoman here in CA. Asked him about his bosses stance on the 2nd amendment. His response was basically that she believed in the the right to bear arms and was in fact an SD gun carrying liberal democrat. But went on to suggest that we don't really need 30 round magazines or semi-auto rifles to hunt deer and such. So I asked him if he thought the founding fathers created the second amendment just to make sure they could hunt turkeys and go to target practice. Didn't really get to finish the conversation, but told him I'd bet millions of dollars that we'll never need to take up arms against our own government . . . but the "British" colonists didn't think they'd have to take up arms against their government either. The right to bear arms is not just about self protection, hunting and sports shooting. The 2nd amendment is our first guarantee of being free from tyranny.

 

[Buzzcook]

That is a popular assertion. But it soesn't hold up to either historic scrutiny or an examination of our laws.

Where in the law was the 2nd used as a defense against insurrection? The Confederates didn't use it, the members of the Whiskey Rebellion didn't use it to excuse their actions. We've had several armed actions against the federal government and no one said, no harm no foul they were practicing their second amendment rights.

The most common reasons given for the 2nd are the preemption of a Federal Military, and the rights of the states to have private armies to put down slave revolts. Slaves that couldn't use the 2nd as an excuse for armed rebellion.

The right to revolution is a philosophical one not a legal or constitutional one. It is enshrined in the declaration of independence not the second amendment.

 

[mehavey]

See Mason's Virginia Declaration of Rights -- upon which much (most) of the BOR was based:

Section 3. That government is, or ought to be, instituted for the common benefit, protection, and security of the people, nation, or community; of all the various modes and forms of government, that is best which is capable of producing the greatest degree of happiness and safety and is most effectually secured against the danger of maladministration. And that, when any government shall be found inadequate or contrary to these purposes, a majority of the community has an indubitable, inalienable, and indefeasible right to reform, alter, or abolish it, in such manner as shall be judged most conducive to the public weal.

Section 13. That a well-regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defense of a free state; that standing armies, in time of peace, should be avoided as dangerous to liberty; and that in all cases the military should be under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power.

Those two paragraphs -- taken together -- tell you exactly what the 2A was all about... to include the right of revolution; the difference between "the military" and the militia; what the militia was actually to be; and reason that the Individual was entrusted with the power of deadly force in defense against the powers of an out-of-control state.

The Republic was founded on the (then) totally radical notion that the body politic of the People -- rough and dangerous as they could be as individuals -- was vastly preferable to the inevitable corruption of an elite ruling class. Compare that w/ the stance taken by the likes of today's new elite, who not only have no clue as the Constitution in context, but would take that power from the People... and hand it to Skynet.
http://www.breitbart.com/big-hollyw...omfortable-having-robots-own-gun-than-humans/



.

 

[zukiphile]

Prof Y, why are you asking your friend why we have the 2d Am. Presumably, he concedes that we do have one.

Of which other amendments does he believe congress has substantial latitude in restricting the scope of the protection? No one needs big words to make a point and newspaper wastes a lot of trees, so Congress could ban them without violating the 1st Am.; this isn't 1791 and it isn't as if we don't have the internet. What's the hub-bub if the government wants to have your grand-mother put up a couple of soldiers in the spare bedroom she doesn't use because you never visit?

If Congress gets to decide which part of a constitutionally protected right is silly, what would have been the point of embedding them within a written constitution?

 

[Aguila Blanca]

The right to revolution is a philosophical one not a legal or constitutional one. It is enshrined in the declaration of independence not the second amendment.

Read The Federalist Papers, the Anti-Federalist Papers, and the contemporaneous writings of the founding fathers. Remember that the original Constitution didn't include the Second Amendment -- or any of the Bill of Rights. That's why they are called "amendments." The fundamental reason underlying the Second Amendment was that an armed populace was seen to be the first safeguard against government tyranny.

 

[Prof Young]

Didn't ask why . . .

I asked him what his bosses stance was on the second amendment. We can write and e-mail all we want and that is a good thing, but the chance to talk face to face with someone close to a liberal democratic legislator is too good to pass.

Thanks for all the posts above. Key reason I like this forum is to lean and gain a greater understanding of firearms, hunting, SD, CCW and the second amendment.

Life is good.
Prof Young

 

[44 AMP]

That is a popular assertion. But it soesn't hold up to either historic scrutiny or an examination of our laws.

Where in the law was the 2nd used as a defense against insurrection? The Confederates didn't use it, the members of the Whiskey Rebellion didn't use it to excuse their actions. We've had several armed actions against the federal government and no one said, no harm no foul they were practicing their second amendment rights.

If you are scrutinizing it with the mindset that the 2nd Amendment is a justification or an excuse for armed insurrection, you won't find it. Because its not. And, its not even close.

The 2nd Amendment grants nothing to the individual citizen. It is a check on the power of government. period.

People get too focused on the reasons (real or imagined) behind the 2nd Amendment, and not on the article itself.

None of the examples mentioned ever did try to use the 2nd Amendment as any kind of defense for their actions. Nor were they accused of illegal ownership and carry of arms (keep and bear). They were charged (and fought) because of their illegal use of arms. There is a difference, though many do not, or will not recognize that difference.

This is the mindset of the anti-gun bigot. They believe that if you have a gun, you will use it to illegally shoot someone. They cannot seem to conceive of anything else, and therefore believe guns are evil, need to be restricted, and banned whenever possible.

As for " private armies to put down slave revolts", do remember that while they can be used for that, at the time people were also concerned about attacks from "wild Indians" and more than a bit worried about the troops of foreign Monarchs. Britain, France, and Spain all had troops in North America at the time, and we had been fighting some of them for decades.

And, we fought some of them again, after the Constitution was ratified! also remember that at the time, there weren't even any police in our new country. Organized police forces didn't exist then, and didn't arrive on our social scene until several decades later!

The reason we have arms is because it is our natural right. The 2nd Amendment formally tells government to keep their hands off that right.

The fact that it has been less than 100% successful in doing so over the recent century is a different matter.

 

[Brian Pfleuger]

It is a check on the power of government. period.

A concept long since lost, I'm afraid.

The idea that the people's rights and power is limitless, except as spelled out by law, and the governments power is nonexistent, except as spelled out by The COTUS... proper as it may be... no longer informs our policy or opinions.

We lost another related and possibly equally important concept... starting before but culminating some time after the Civil War. "Lost" isn't really right, as it was intentionally abrogated. That is, the idea that each STATE is where The People's power lies and The COTUS (and the government that it creates) exists only to expedite and mediate the relationships between them.

I have long held that the most serious lack of insight by The Founders was their inability to foresee that "We the People" would so thoroughly and completely lose control of our STATE governments. An overly powerful, out of control, totally relied upon, unconstitutional, Federal power is the only possible result.

Of course, I can't really say if they couldn't foresee it or if they might have simply not known how to prevent it, since so doing relies almost entirely on a non-apathetic populace.

All that is to say that if we'd kept the Federal government where it belonged, the "meaning" of any amendment would be irrelevant. The very idea that we'd have to question what ANY of them mean is ultimately an indication that we are in a place The Founders feared, of why we needed them in the first place.

 

[Tom Servo]

It is a check on the power of government. period.

It really runs deeper than that. At its core, the RKBA is about individual determination and responsibility. The Framers didn't invent it out of whole cloth. They looked to Locke and Hobbes for the natural right of self-defense. They looked to Gibbon for the lesson that standing armies are anathema to a just society. They looked to Blackstone for political concept.

And the idea is simple: deterrence. The usual glib response from the other side is, "oh, how are you going to resist the government when they have drones and tanks and nukes?"

That's a cheap dodge, and it doesn't take into account that well-equipped, superior armies have often met effective, even disastrous, resistance from ad hoc militias. Consider Vietnam, Afghanistan, or even Hadrianople.

(On the other hand, consider the recent situation in Venezuela. Before leaving office, Hugo Chavez banned civilian gun ownership. Everything got turned in. When Maduro took power and encountered protests, he offered "a gun to every militia man." Essentially, he created a national goon squad, who then went on to rob and pillage at will, knowing they'd meet no significant resistance.)

But it probably won't ever come to that. Even the reprehensible men who would assert their will through coercion or force understand the resistance they would receive. So long as we have an armed populace, we have that element of deterrence that keeps things from going that far.

I can't preserve my own sovereignty as a free person if I can't defend myself. To that end, no free or fair government should restrict my means to do so. No free or fair government should fear my means to do so.

With some slight exceptions, we should be very wary of gun control. Any political body or candidate that tells us we don't need the means of self-defense, or that the government should maintain a monopoly of force, should be treated with suspicion at the very least.

 

[mehavey]

The reason we have arms is because it is our natural right

While it pains me to say it, there is absolutely no such thing as a "natural" right.

Instead, the rights of men and the Rights of Man are purely those which can be
taken, and then held through political power.

... and political power grows out of the barrel of a gun.

 

[44 AMP]

While it pains me to say it, there is absolutely no such thing as a "natural" right.

I disagree. But then, I separate the concept from the reality.

We have natural rights simply because we exist. One of those is the right to exist.

However, I recognize the reality that the only things you can actually own are those things you can defend. Including your life.

We have a right to property, including our lives, which is why someone taking them is considered a crime.

 

[Aguila Blanca]

While it pains me to say it, there is absolutely no such thing as a "natural" right.

The authors of the Declaration of Independence did not agree with you.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, 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.

If a right endowed upon us by the Creator isn't a "natural" right, I don't know what is.

 

[5whiskey]

Read The Federalist Papers, the Anti-Federalist Papers, and the contemporaneous writings of the founding fathers. Remember that the original Constitution didn't include the Second Amendment -- or any of the Bill of Rights. That's why they are called "amendments." The fundamental reason underlying the Second Amendment was that an armed populace was seen to be the first safeguard against government tyranny.

Yes! And specifically James Madison's federalist 46. This spells out exactly the purpose of the 2nd amendment. I'll give a brief highlight reel, and yes it places as great an importance on the fact that we have state governments, but it's 2A implications cannot be ignored...

Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of. Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms. And it is not certain, that with this aid alone they would not be able to shake off their yokes. But were the people to possess the additional advantages of local governments chosen by themselves, who could collect the national will and direct the national force, and of officers appointed out of the militia, by these governments, and attached both to them and to the militia, it may be affirmed with the greatest assurance, that the throne of every tyranny in Europe would be speedily overturned in spite of the legions which surround it.

 

[sigshepardo]

Yeah I really couldn't agree more on this.

However for some reason people don't talk about that today. Its hunting this and personal protection that. It is there for tyranny. But that is too harsh for some I suppose.

 

[mehavey]

The authors of the Declaration of Independence did not agree with you.

It pains me [even more] to say that's irrelevant to the facts of reality through the brutal lens of history (even our own of late); Irrelevant to an increasing number of court findings; and TOTALLY irrelevant to any argument with the 'anti's' -- who will jeer you off the stage on the way to passing even MORE ordnances for the GREATER 'natural' rights "...of the children".

Natural Right is an extremely weak argument in today's world.

I say again... any such concept as Natural Rights exist solely in your power to preserve & enforce them. Period.

Forget that... and you can forget them.




Has anyone here taken time to look at the latest state of original Bill of Rights ?
That ought to be a little sobering.

 

[Aguila Blanca]

Has anyone here taken time to look at the latest state of original Bill of Rights ?

The Bill of Rights is the first ten amendments to the Constitution. I'm not aware that any of them have been repealed or amended recently. Have I missed something?

 

[mehavey]

Yes.

Starting w/ the phrase "...shall make no law..." and ending with "... prohibiting the free exercise thereof...."

Nine simple un-misinterpretable words which are now buried in the trashbin of repeated incremental stare decisis banana peels. ("Infringed" also does want to roll off the tongue here, but that pesky stale lettuce of stare decisis again kind of leaves a bad taste.)

I could walk down the rest of first 10 -- but save for the 3rd, 7th and 8th -- the others are largely OBE if not under accelerated attack as "out of date."

That the par-boiled People frogs (much less the slowly-skinned legal beagles) the can't even tell the water temp anymore is the real problem.

 

[Double Naught Spy]

We have natural rights simply because we exist. One of those is the right to exist.

Natural rights - a philosophical concept dreamed of by John Locke, who made money in the slave trade.

In practice, rights only exist so long as somebody else is not there to take them away. That is reality, not philosophy.

 

[mehavey]

In practice, rights only exist so long as somebody else is not there {and capable/willing} to take them away {from those unwilling/incapable of defending them.}
That is reality, not philosophy.

+1
The Man gets it.
{my added script}

 

[Brian Pfleuger]

Splitting hairs on gnats, fellas.

It can be believed that rights exist whether or not a person is capable of exercising them.

In fact, if a people's incapability of exercising the right implies that it does not exist, then what is the point in fighting to restore them? There is nothing restore, since they don't exist.

I realize that's the point that's been made, that you would be, at that point, fighting for no more than the power to enforce your view. It wouldn't be for "rights", it would be for authority, or power.

While it is undeniably true that the barrel of a great many guns has been used to abrogate the rights of far too many people, the only reason for fighting to "restore" those rights is if they do, fundamentally, exist. Otherwise, if I have "mine", why do I care about "yours"? "Yours", which don't even exist... and why should I risk mine or my life to get you something that doesn't exist?

What's more, the idea that rights do not exist inalienably also implies that "right" and "wrong" are not inherent. In such case, there is no logical basis for arguing the point, since there is neither right nor wrong.