- This topic has 4 voices and 10 replies.
-
Posts
-
I found an article at Discovery News:Why Do We Have the Second Amendment?It's always good to question possible motives behind articles like this, and given its brevity, it obviously is not a detailed account of early attitudes toward gun rights. Some of the ideas raised in the article:- American wanted to enjoy gun possession like they had under English law- Guns were only effective at relatively short ranges at that time- Firearms were recognized early on as being helpful in aiding early citizens defend America against foreign invaders- States recorded the names of people who owned guns and could inspect them in homesWithout turning this thread into a revisit of our other thread on the recent shooting, a few comments. First, I would have to verify the last issue listed above, as it seems rather suspect. I am guessing that there may have been some qualification to the ability to inspect guns or to record gun ownership. I find it hard to believe that the government would keep track of every gun owned by every farmer or hillbilly living in the original states. Second, there was no discussion in the article about the issue of citizens defending themselves against a tyrannical domestic government. That, and the usefulness of guns in private hands to repel foreign invaders, seem to be the most essential issues behind the Second Amendment. Does anyone know if the idea of bearing arms to defend against domestic tyranny was an issue that helped drive the creation/adoption of the amendment?
I have no issue with the States keeping records of firearms. The powers not divested to the Federal Government are reserved for the States. To be honest, I trust my State government far more than I trust the imbeciles in Washington.
I have no issue with the States keeping records of firearms. The powers not divested to the Federal Government are reserved for the States. To be honest, I trust my State government far more than I trust the imbeciles in Washington.
I always thought that was the original intent. The States regulate their own militias to fight against a foreign invasion or domestic standing army.
But Ski, if that is the overarching rationale – to provide the States with a way to form militias easily – it seems that the right really resides with States and not the people. That is my problem; if the State has the right, the State can easily hand over that right to the federal government (especially at the thread of being defunded). It seems to me that to be a more inviolate right, the right to bear arms has to be derived from some personal right.
It is a personal right even if the states regulate it. The individual right to bear arms is a given, but the State can know who has them just in case they need to gather them as a militia against a federal or foreign army.
It is a personal right even if the states regulate it. The individual right to bear arms is a given, but the State can know who has them just in case they need to gather them as a militia against a federal or foreign army.
I believe this to be correct.
It is a personal right even if the states regulate it. The individual right to bear arms is a given, but the State can know who has them just in case they need to gather them as a militia against a federal or foreign army.
So Ski, am I correct in asserting that you deny an inherent right of the individual to own arms based on a rationale that it could help him defend against State tyranny? In other words, the right of the individual to bear arms is not based on the right of the individual to protect himself against a state governor who acts as a tyrant to the people in his own state? I do not disagree with what you have said thus far; rather, I am questioning if that is all there is to the philosophical underpinnings of the Amendment.
I don't believe there are any provisions in the Constitution about overthrowing a state government. The Federal government wouldn't allow it anyway. If you are going to overthrow your state you would have to overthrow the Federal government first. One could argue that the states are inviolate and perpetual entities whereas the Federal government is not. The Union is perpetual and unbreakable, but the Federal government only exists to protect that union and help it function as it should. When the Federal government ceases to perform in this fashion, it is to be discarded and rebuilt so that it can.
So Ski, am I correct in asserting that you deny an inherent right of the individual to own arms based on a rationale that it could help him defend against State tyranny? In other words, the right of the individual to bear arms is not based on the right of the individual to protect himself against a state governor who acts as a tyrant to the people in his own state? I do not disagree with what you have said thus far; rather, I am questioning if that is all there is to the philosophical underpinnings of the Amendment.
If I understand you correctly, no I am not saying that. It is about Natural and legal rights as is most of the Constitution.The individual right to bear arms is an unalienable right to protect one's self. The 2nd states that as obvious. The amendment also legally allows for a militia that is the responsibility of the people.
I may be incorrect here, but I believe militias are for the defense of the states primarily. That can mean to defend them from a tyrannical Federal government which is how the South interpreted it obviously.
