Because they intended *not *to have a standing army, but still needed to ensure a military force could be assembled quickly when needed.
Did you not take American History in middle school?
Sure, but that doesn’t address the question: was the intent of the Second Amendment only to ensure that the states could raise up militia forces? The problem is that the Founders presumed everyone would be armed and everyone could be summoned to militia duty; they saw it as one and the same thing. Whereas today it’s two separate topics, leading to the current debate over whether TRTK&BA became “extinct” when universal militia service did.
It does seem that totally aside from militia service, and hunting and defense on the frontier, owning guns was seen as a right and freedom for a hundred years after the 2nd was passed. Even the infamous Dred Scott decision gave a backhanded affirmation of this, by asserting that if negros were full citizens with rights, among other things they would have the right to would be “to keep and carry arms wherever they went.”
It may be argued that our freedoms today are the result of a functioning democracy, not guns; yet certainly when democracy has broken down or been ignored, the first thing those doing so do is to ban the victimized from owning weapons.
No, these days I think it’s gerrymandering or voter IDs…
(Oh, I forgot requiring the display of flag pins)
It’s the only reason stated. In the only amendment where they thought a reason even needed to be stated.
Yes, and that makes holding the Second to be universal and inviolable is not supported by the text or the original intent. Glad you agree.
Yes, and you’d see similar arguments in the Sixties in response to the fear of seeing the Black Panthers armed, and in the Constitutional Convention when the Southerners wanted to ensure their slave patrols would not be interfered with. But from the same people that now think it’s a universal right.
But you don’t quite agree, do you? Your view of government, again, is that of some alien entity imposed on the people, that needs to be resisted by arms when it becomes “tyrannical” (although you’ve never actually done that, have you?). Don’t try to tell us something you don’t understand or accept yourself. You are not a democrat, you are a gangster - just a cowardly one.
That old bullshit again. :rolleyes: Here’s a hint, civilization is being damaged and human rights are being ignored by the people who insist they have a “right”, an invented and imaginary one at that, to take or threaten the lives of others. People like you. You are part of the problem. The menace to civilization is you. It’s time to face it.
As long as this is just your opinion, then no problem. It’s not supported by the history nor is this view the law of the land. SCOTUS has ruled contradictory to pretty much everything you’ve stated. Have you read Heller?
Have you read Heller? The rationale is detailed quite thoroughly in the opinion.
You missed the point again, as usual. The Founders didn’t see a need for a separate guarantee of the right to personally keep and bear arms, because they thought that was a given. As they conceived it, the Militia consisted of the entire adult male population, owning their own guns. A federal law banning, on whatever pretext the private owning of guns would have effectively dismantled the militia system of the time.
Do yourself a favor: drop the “militia= slave patrol” thing. It’s been discussed and debunked and only makes you look (even) less credible (than you already were).
Governments do have a distressing tendency to become “alien entities”, that has to be constantly watched out for. The whole reason why the Constitution was controversial at the time, and why a Bill of Rights was insisted upon, was because of fears that, being removed from any direct answerability to the people, it would become high-handed in handing down proclamations, backed by force. Such as progressives who see it as their role to be an avant garde intelligentsia, telling the drooling unwashed what’s good for them, and if they don’t like it, tough.
Well don’t they?
I have a right to be an individual, not a cell in the body politic. A person, not one-three hundred millionth of “the masses”. And part of that means living under a government that ultimately is controlled by the people, that isn’t an out of control Frankenstein’s Monster. That doesn’t see the people as subjects, who are to shut up and do what they’re told. I believe that a big part of this is the private retention of weapons, if only as a “canary in a coal mine” warning system. If disarmament was what you seem to believe- the overwhelming desire of the majority- then it couldn’t be thwarted by a tiny handful of militants.
ETA: Not that I expect you ever to change your mind, but I enjoy pointing out how wrong you are.
Cliven Bundy is a recent example of an armed citizen who stood up to government. How do you feel about him, Lumpy ?
Man, clothahump’s thread seems to have some legs now. Good job, little fella.
**Lumpy **can only wish he had Bundy’s courage and integrity.
IOW, no, that’s not in the Constitution. Thanks for the admission.
You were making the same point yourself in the post that replied to. So cut the shit.
That’s why we have elections. :rolleyes: No, the majority having more persuasive arguments than you does not make them “tyrannical”. It means they have better arguments, and you need to work on yours.
The government was far less democratic then than it is now, granted. So don’t go on to claim the situation is still the same. The claim that people need to be armed to oppose the government, and the government grants that right, rather than support it and suppress insurrections (of the type you fantasize about) is simply psychotic.
A Free Man on the Land, huh? :rolleyes:
I don’t think the founding fathers foresaw the types of weapons we’re seeing these days. If they had, I’m sure they would have been more clear about what the intent really was.
Or they’d have gotten Ben Franklin off the snuff and booze and cracking on building some.
Pseudopods, more like. And it’s oozing off in the wrong direction.
FWIW I thought suing gun manufacturers for misuse of weapons was indeed a stupid liberal idea.
I have to say, I quite agree.
It’s a pity that the noise to signal ratio in this thread is so very high.
Did I say or in any way imply that any person with a real or imagined grudge should become a one-man nation? Straw man.
P.S. if the facts are as reported in the press, Bundy is legally in the wrong.
You obsess over the “well-regulated militia” part, but seem to completely ignore “the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed”. That’s in the Constitution, yet you insist that refers solely to state governments.
You cut the shit. I was pointing out one (infamous) example that demonstrated that the right to keep and bear arms had been for decades considered a personal right, and you got on a rant about slave patrols.
Elections don’t mean a lot if the people running the country ever decide they don’t have to abide by them. As frequently happens in countries around the world where if the President isn’t reelected he suspends elections and has the opposition arrested.
P.S. What majority? It’s the gun banners who want to ignore the people whose votes have consistently opted for greater liberty, and force gun bans on the population “for the good of society” (as they see it).
Governments don’t grant rights. The Second Amendment is a provision of the Constitution that obliges the government to recognize and respect owning weapons as a right. As for the current respective power of the government and the populace, I agree it’s gotten way out of balance; we need less government power and more respect for gun rights.
See first response.
ETA: ElvisL1ves, whether I’m right or wrong, at least my arguments are honest and logical. You’re the one who quotes out of context, ignores inconvenient facts, name calls, distorts the plain meaning of sentences, and in general acts like a cheat and a liar.
“One-man”?? Cliven had hundreds of armed supporters. “Nation”? Cliven was happy to be a citizen of Nevada. “Legally in the wrong”? Your ilk is first to remind us that law is what the government says it is. The American revolutionaries who fought at Bunker Hill were legally in the wrong.
Cliven Bundy seems to me a perfect example of what you and your ilk speak of, when you speak of 2nd Amendment remedies for an encroaching government. He had wide support; Rand Paul consulted with him to refine his views on state’s rights; Bundy was endorsed (until he made racist remarks) by key right-wing intellectuals such as Sean Hannity.
My question is aimed not just at Lumpy, but all those Dopers who see the Second Amendment as a defense against possible federal tyranny. How do you feel about Cliven Bundy? Out in the wild he was a hero for those holding your sentiments.
You keep blathering about taking up arms against tyranny. Not doing it, no, but at least you’re blathering.
That’s where the militia* comes from*, fool.
Uh, no. :rolleyes:
Your example was about how blacks should not be permitted guns.
Or if a minority of “the people” decide they don’t feel like abiding by them. That’s the “right” you’re claiming.
You’re really going with that, aren’t you? Yes, you really are. 
The text itself says what it’s for. An honest person, such as you claim yourself to be, would acknowledge that.
Only in the fantasies where you imagine yourself having the same courage and integrity as the Bundy Brigade.
And yet only a few hundred people (I thought only dozens actually, but no matter) in the entire country believed in the Resisting Tyranny line enough to actually grab their weapons and join him. That’s all. There are certainly plenty more who post on anonymous message boards with one hand while stroking their barrels with the other, though.
It’s easy to say democracy has nothing to fear from those yahoos, but there could be real people getting really hurt in the meanwhile. Some of these idiots were actually aiming at Jackbooted Thugs of Gummint Tyranny, aka LEO’s. And no doubt they went home still claiming to be Law-Abiding Citizens.
HahahahahahAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAhahahahahahahHAHAHA!!! wipes tears of laughter
Omg, that’s one the funniest things I’ve seen in this thread. Well done.
…
It was a joke, right? :dubious: :eek: