Add Reply
Add Comment As A Guest
Close Topic OptionsAmendment 2
Amendment 2 - Politics, Business, Civil, History - Posted: 29th Feb, 2008 - 2:32pm
Posts: 17 - Views: 2620
Second AmendmentPost Date: 5th Aug, 2006 - 11:53am / Post ID: #
Amendment 2
QUOTE Amendment II
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.Â
Amendment 2 has been a very confusing, and very angry issue to discuss. Along side freedom of speech, its one of our most misunderstood and misinterpreted amendments. Now, I'm sure some of you have already decided what I will say and am upset. But your probably wrong, and probably not prepared for what I am about to say.
This amendment is to protect our right to violently overthrow the government should that day come. Our right to bear arms. In fact, I used to believe this only meant people should bear arms in a militia, but reading our fore fathers beliefs, I no longer feel that way. It states a well regulated militia is necessary for the security of the state, then states the right to bear arms. It doesn't specify in the militia. The fore fathers back up this belief.
QUOTE "This country, with its institutions, belongs to the people who inhabit it. Whenever they shall grow weary of the existing
government, they can exercise their constitutional right of amending it, or their revolutionary right to dismember it or overthrow it."
-Abraham Lincoln, First Inaugural Address, March 4, 1861
QUOTE The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.
-Thomas Jefferson
And this is the biggest reason why this amendment should be used to allow the individual to own and carry firearms. Keep in mind, I have three kids, and do not own a gun.
QUOTE The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to allow the subject races to possess arms. History shows that all conquerors who have allowed the subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by so doing. Indeed, I would go so far as to say that the supply of arms to the underdogs is a sine qua non for the overthrow of any sovereignty.
-Adolf Hitler
From the mouth of the worst dictator in modern history. In other words, while our fore fathers knew revolutions were dangerous and not always beneficial, they understood, intimately, the need for the government to be afraid of its people. And if you take that freedom away, you take away our right to reform our country.
I know this can be a hot issue, so lets keep to the question on exactly what this amendment means for us yesterday, today, and tomorrow. Any discussion about laws and their relation to this amendment is ok as long as we stay on the constitutionality of it.
Sponsored Links:
Amendment
What I have found most interesting in various discussions concerning the 2nd Amendment is the fact that the Supreme Court has ruled, over and over again, that the 2nd Amendment DOES protect the rights of individuals to own arms. Yet we still see people, primarily on the political Left, that claim it doesn't.
I certainly agree with the idea of having SOME regulation. For example, I don't think it is a good idea to allow convicted felons to own guns, unless there is some way to assure that they are safe with those guns. I would also be wary of allowing private citizens to own fully automatic weapons or such things as grenade launchers.
At the same time, I still don't understand the furor about "assault" rifles. They are simply semi-automatic rifles, with pistol grips, and certain visual characteristics.
International Level: International Guru / Political Participation: 854 
85.4%
Amendment 2 History & Civil Business Politics
I think that our right, as citizens, to bear arms for the defense of the freedom of our nation is wholly understood by todays professional politicians, and I think that the concern that they have for their paychecks and their titles is the cause of why we have civilian law enforcement that is becoming increasingly militant in their bearing and that is armed with weapons that are outlawed for civilian use, despite the fact that they are not a branch of the military and they are not fighting in any conflict against another nation. Just food for thought.
International Level: New Activist / Political Participation: 22 2.2%
Post Date: 13th Nov, 2006 - 8:26am / Post ID: #
Amendment
Civil law enforcement is required for the enforcement of our laws. If not law enforcement exists, who makes sure people follow the law? Law enforcement officials get trained on their weapons, and for the most part, if civilians get trained, they can also get a license to own one. Some states, like mine, allow conceal and carry as well with a license. Thats why most crimes aren't committed with legal guns.
Civilians carrying guns is also essential to the regulating of the government. Bear with me here. Our forefathers made it clear that revolution, if our government starts working against us is our duty. If we turn into a tyrannical military government, its our job to over throw it. What is the best way to ensure that doesn't happen? Take away all the guns. Thus civilians being armed is necessary to ensure the future freedom of our country. I doubt it will always be free enough to our liking.
Post Date: 23rd Dec, 2006 - 8:30am / Post ID: #
Amendment
This gets down to the point of another topic--are we willing to give up our freedom in order to be better protected? To what degree?
I say that our rights must remain in-tact to a degree that the people remain more powerful than any government of the people.
I'm not sure if that situation exists, today.
Post Date: 23rd Sep, 2007 - 1:11am / Post ID: #
Amendment 2
| QUOTE |
| Amendment II 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. |
I find nothing confusing about it really... it's to protect against abusive Government. The founders clearly stated ist's not about duck hunting. The reason is because the Government back in the day needed it against the King. Interestingly powerful for the Ron Paul Revolution huh?
Amendment 2
| QUOTE |
| Montanans insist on gun rights By Valerie Richardson February 25, 2008 Montana officials are warning that if the Supreme Court rules in the D.C. gun ban case that the right to keep and bear arms protects only state-run militias like the National Guard, then the federal government will have breached Montana's statehood contract. Nobody is raising flags for the Republic of Montana, but nobody is kidding, either. So far, 39 elected Montana officials have signed a resolution declaring that a court ruling of the Second Amendment is a right of states and not of individuals would violate Montana's compact. "The U.S. would do well to keep its contractual promise to the states that the Second Amendment secures an individual right now as it did upon execution of the statehood contract," Montana Secretary of State Brad Johnson said in a Feb. 15 letter to The Washington Times. ... The Montana statehood contract, which was preserved as Article I of the state constitution, specifies gun ownership as an individual right: "The right of any person to keep or bear arms ... shall not be called in question." |
We'll be watching closely the case that the Supreme Court is hearing soon (March 18, 2008, District of Columbia v. Heller) in regard to the second Amendment. What this article fails to mention is that the Court already ruled on this in 1939:
| QUOTE |
| The Supreme Court has never answered the Second Amendment question directly, and it has been nearly 70 years since the court even approached it obliquely. A decision in 1939, United States v. Miller, held that a sawed-off shotgun was not one of the "arms" to which the Second Amendment referred in its single, densely written, and oddly punctuated sentence: "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." |
| QUOTE |
| "Since the Second Amendment. . . applies only to the right of the State to maintain a militia and not to the individual's right to bear arms, there can be no serious claim to any express constitutional right to possess a firearm." - U.S. v. Warin (6th Circuit, 1976) |
The ACLU claims to be neutral on the matter of the right to bear arms, although, in my opinion, they have a definite standing. Their point is the matter of regulation:
| QUOTE |
| Unless the Constitution protects the individual's right to own all kinds of arms, there is no principled way to oppose reasonable restrictions on handguns, Uzis or semi-automatic rifles. If indeed the Second Amendment provides an absolute, constitutional protection for the right to bear arms in order to preserve the power of the people to resist government tyranny, then it must allow individuals to possess bazookas, torpedoes, SCUD missiles and even nuclear warheads, for they, like handguns, rifles and M-16s, are arms. Moreover, it is hard to imagine any serious resistance to the military without such arms. Yet few, if any, would argue that the Second Amendment gives individuals the unlimited right to own any weapons they please. But as soon as we allow governmental regulation of any weapons, we have broken the dam of Constitutional protection. Once that dam is broken, we are not talking about whether the government can constitutionally restrict arms, but rather what constitutes a reasonable restriction. |
https://www.washingtontimes.com/https://www.aclu.org/police/
Edited: FarSeer on 29th Feb, 2008 - 1:07pm
Edited: FarSeer on 29th Feb, 2008 - 1:07pmInternational Level: Ambassador / Political Participation: 595 59.5%
Post Date: 29th Feb, 2008 - 2:32pm / Post ID: #
Amendment 2 Politics Business Civil & History
This is my view of the second amendment. We as tax paying citizens of this great nation have the right and the responsibility to maintain the status of our government. The citizens are those who make up a militia that is wholey separate from the nations military forces. It is the responsibility of that militia to overthrow a government that no longer serves its people. Our fore fathers have taken the time to protect the citizens of this country from a government that would try to be something the people do not want.
While I was in the military I learned how to handle and utilize a lot of weapons. I am sure that if our government decides to change without the people approval then there are a lot of people who can with the help of others over throw it.
It is the will of the people to keep or take away the government we have. If we give up our freedom to do this for the sake of safety then we will have neither. I think Ben Franklin said something to this effect. I think he was a very wise man.
TOPIC: Amendment 2