The 2nd

[oucub23]

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.

The militia was the people. To secure a free state, we must be armed. The right of the peole to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed? Has it? Most certainly. When this was ratified, Bob the redneck could buy the very same weaponry that the military could. Is that true today? Not even remotely. The Founders wanted people on an equal footing with the government--to be able to restrict the government. If the gov is constantly nervous about Johnny Militiaman going crazy if the gov pushes too hard, it's less likely to push.

Those that say we don't need this today b/c there's no way an armed rebellion would stand a chance, consider this. What President would possibly survive a reelection if he ordered an ****ault and destruction of Billings, Montana? Or any town for that matter? The 2nd isn't about hunting, and it's not about defending our homes. It's about defending ourselves against the government, and keeping the government nervous about us.

Proponents of the 2nd say that w/o the 2nd, none of the others stand. I'm not sure any of them are really standing now, but at least we have scraps of them left. If we take guns from the populace, what's to stop us from taking more speech away? Or more private property? Or more rights from the states? Nothing.

[SpankyNek]

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.

The militia was the people. To secure a free state, we must be armed. The right of the peole to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed? Has it? Most certainly. When this was ratified, Bob the redneck could buy the very same weaponry that the military could. Is that true today? Not even remotely. The Founders wanted people on an equal footing with the government--to be able to restrict the government. If the gov is constantly nervous about Johnny Militiaman going crazy if the gov pushes too hard, it's less likely to push.

Those that say we don't need this today b/c there's no way an armed rebellion would stand a chance, consider this. What President would possibly survive a reelection if he ordered an ****ault and destruction of Billings, Montana? Or any town for that matter? The 2nd isn't about hunting, and it's not about defending our homes. It's about defending ourselves against the government, and keeping the government nervous about us.

Proponents of the 2nd say that w/o the 2nd, none of the others stand. I'm not sure any of them are really standing now, but at least we have scraps of them left. If we take guns from the populace, what's to stop us from taking more speech away? Or more private property? Or more rights from the states? Nothing.

How has the 2nd kept this from happening to date?

Why, in the same document, cite treason as justification for death?

[oucub23]

How has the 2nd kept this from happening to date?

Why, in the same document, cite treason as justification for death?

Kept what from happening?

[SpankyNek]

Kept what from happening?

I'm not sure any of them are really standing now, but at least we have scraps of them left. If we take guns from the populace, what's to stop us from taking more speech away? Or more private property? Or more rights from the states?

Your inference is that the bill of rights is a shadow of its former self...that speech, private property, and state's rights have already been reduced even though we have guns is a decent argument for the in effectiveness of this particular right, IMO.

[Sancho]

Why, in the same document, cite treason as justification for death?

I dont see the issue. What is the problem?

[SpankyNek]

Would not taking arms against the government be treason?

If so, the 2nd is toothless.

[Tundra]

It's treason if you lose.

[Sancho]

Would not taking arms against the government be treason?

If so, the 2nd is toothless.

The people vs the government. Who is committing treason?
Hint: The United States does not equal the United States Government.
If the US Government took up arms against the people the US Government is committing treason, not the people.

[SpankyNek]

It's treason if you lose.

And if you win, the constitution burns.

[SpankyNek]

The people vs the government. Who is committing treason?
Hint: The United States does not equal the United States Government.

Your point?

We are talking about the Constitution here...clearly we are talking about the government.

[Sancho]

Your point?

We are talking about the Constitution here...clearly we are talking about the government.

Yes, the rules for the government.

If the US Government took up arms against the people the US Government is committing treason, not the people.

Think about what treason is. If a guy sold military secrets to the Russians in the 60's he was committing treason against the people of the US. Not the government. The government is just a proxy to implement the will of the people.

[SpankyNek]

Yes, the rules for the government.

If the US Government took up arms against the people the US Government is committing treason, not the people.

Correct.

And if the people took up arms against the US Government, or worked with other forces to overthrow it?

[Sancho]

Correct.

And if the people took up arms against the US Government, or worked with other forces to overthrow it?

Then the government is committing treason against the United States if it takes up arms against said people or even resists. (****uming by "the people" we are talking about a majority of them, not just some group of 5 wackos from Montana.)

[oucub23]

Your inference is that the bill of rights is a shadow of its former self...that speech, private property, and state's rights have already been reduced even though we have guns is a decent argument for the in effectiveness of this particular right, IMO.

I would simply argue that as the scope of the 2nd has been restricted, the scope of the others has shrunk as well.

Oh, and your discussion with Sancho is great for this board--it clearly shows two very different schools of thought. What is the government? Is it an entity in and of itself, or is it an extension of the will of the People?

[SpankyNek]

Yes, the rules for the government.

If the US Government took up arms against the people the US Government is committing treason, not the people.

Think about what treason is. If a guy sold military secrets to the Russians in the 60's he was committing treason against the people of the US. Not the government. The government is just a proxy to implement the will of the people.

If this is the case, how can the government ever become tyrannical?

Clearly our government is an extension of the body of states.

[SpankyNek]

I would simply argue that as the scope of the 2nd has been restricted, the scope of the others has shrunk as well.

Oh, and your discussion with Sancho is great for this board--it clearly shows two very different schools of thought. What is the government? Is it an entity in and of itself, or is it an extension of the will of the People?

In some form, it must be an entity in and of itself, that is the reason for its representative form. Even if the majority of people wanted to dissolve it, it would likely remain, as the founders did not believe in the power of he mob, they created a government to withstand such aggression. I don't see how it could be toppled.

[Sancho]

If this is the case, how can the government ever become tyrannical?

Clearly our government is an extension of the body of states.

By usurping more power than was granted to them by the people.

[Sancho]

In some form, it must be an entity in and of itself, that is the reason for its representative form. Even if the majority of people wanted to dissolve it, it would likely remain, as the founders did not believe in the power of he mob, they created a government to withstand such aggression. I don't see how it could be toppled.

That is completely laughable considering what they had just done to gain independence from a tyrannical government.

[Tundra]

And if you win, the constitution burns.

No, it stays for its original purpose.

[Sancho]

And if you win, the constitution burns.

It sounds like you have an ****-backwards view of what the Constitution and indeed the government itself is for.

[OnlyOneOklahoma]

I don't think the 2nd amendment is under threat.

There may be restrictions placed on certain things but last I checked, not being able to purchase a 30 round magazine did not infringe on one's right to bare arms.

Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk 2

[SoonerArtillery]

I don't think the 2nd amendment is under threat.

There may be restrictions placed on certain things but last I checked, not being able to purchase a 30 round magazine did not infringe on one's right to bare arms.

Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk 2

THANK GOD! I thought I was going to have to sew sleeves on all my wife-beaters...

[oucub23]

I don't think the 2nd amendment is under threat.

There may be restrictions placed on certain things but last I checked, not being able to purchase a 30 round magazine did not infringe on one's right to bare arms.

Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk 2

Infringe means to encroach upon. Perhaps mags aren't infringing, but requiring permits to do so does infringe. I'm not arguing against those things mind you--not in this posting--I'm simply saying that the 2nd has been under threat for some time imo. Restricting the kinds of arms a person can own is an infringement.

[OnlyOneOklahoma]

I think there has to be a line. In another thread you were talking about context (I think it was you) well the framers context was muzzle loading hunting rifles. Not fully automatic and semi automatic weapons.

I want to be very clear that I am not a fan of disarmament, but I don't think a forced registration (even 18th century militias had them) is a burden on the gun owner.

[SpankyNek]

Do you guys that think requiring permit is an infringement feel the same way about mentally handicapped and Felton's right to gun ownership?

Last I checked, they're citizens too.

[brokebacksooner]

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 see the first part as the key. I see it as the founding fathers wanted the people to have guns, so that when the government called upon the militia to protect the "state" the government wouldn't have to worry about providing guns and ammo to the soldiers. The FF were suspicious of a professional army.

"A standing army of regular troops in time of peace is dangerous to public liberty, and such shall not be raised or kept up in time of peace but from necessity, and for the security of the people, nor then without the consent of two-thirds of the members present of both Houses; and in all cases the military shall be subordinate to the civil authority." - Aed**** Burke 1788

Now 200+ years later we have a tradition that the 2nd amendment is solely about private citizens being able to have guns and that's fine. But even in the later part of the 18th century and early 19th century; private citizens didn't stockpile cannons.

[soonerintn]

I think there has to be a line. In another thread you were talking about context (I think it was you) well the framers context was muzzle loading hunting rifles. Not fully automatic and semi automatic weapons.

I want to be very clear that I am not a fan of disarmament, but I don't think a forced registration (even 18th century militias had them) is a burden on the gun owner.

Burden, maybe not, but then again getting a photo Id isn't a burden to voting either, right?

[OUMallen]

I see the first part as the key. I see it as the founding fathers wanted the people to have guns, so that when the government called upon the militia to protect the "state" the government wouldn't have to worry about providing guns and ammo to the soldiers. The FF were suspicious of a professional army.

"A standing army of regular troops in time of peace is dangerous to public liberty, and such shall not be raised or kept up in time of peace but from necessity, and for the security of the people, nor then without the consent of two-thirds of the members present of both Houses; and in all cases the military shall be subordinate to the civil authority." - Aed**** Burke 1788

Now 200+ years later we have a tradition that the 2nd amendment is solely about private citizens being able to have guns and that's fine. But even in the later part of the 18th century and early 19th century; private citizens didn't stockpile cannons.

I'm jut guessing here, but I'm thinking a decent firearm was fabulously expensive in the 1700s. You couldn't just go to Walmart and put it on your Visa.

[oucub23]

I see the first part as the key. I see it as the founding fathers wanted the people to have guns, so that when the government called upon the militia to protect the "state" the government wouldn't have to worry about providing guns and ammo to the soldiers. The FF were suspicious of a professional army.

"A standing army of regular troops in time of peace is dangerous to public liberty, and such shall not be raised or kept up in time of peace but from necessity, and for the security of the people, nor then without the consent of two-thirds of the members present of both Houses; and in all cases the military shall be subordinate to the civil authority." - Aed**** Burke 1788

Now 200+ years later we have a tradition that the 2nd amendment is solely about private citizens being able to have guns and that's fine. But even in the later part of the 18th century and early 19th century; private citizens didn't stockpile cannons.

Didn't or weren't allowed to?

[OnlyOneOklahoma]

Burden, maybe not, but then again getting a photo Id isn't a burden to voting either, right?

Ahh, but voting is a universal human right, gun ownership for an American is not. The ability to own a gun and owning a gun are two different things.

[soonerintn]

Ahh, but voting is a human right, gun ownership is not. The ability to own a gun and owning a gun are two different things.

Wrong. Gun ownership is a right. Just like voting.

By your logic, the ability to vote and actually voting are 2 different things, as well.

[Sancho]

Ahh, but voting is a universal human right, gun ownership for an American is not. The ability to own a gun and owning a gun are two different things.

Um. No. That was just ****ed, even for you.

[OnlyOneOklahoma]

Um. No. That was just ****ed, even for you.

Yeah, that came out poorly. I will even "like" your post.

We are given the right to vote when we turn 18. A gun is not just handed over by the government to a person.

Surely you can comprehend the difference between a universal human right and gun ownership.

[soonerintn]

No, but you are given the right to own a gun.

The act of voting and the act of owning a gun still required participation and effort by the individual.

[OnlyOneOklahoma]

N

Ok. Well I can argue the rig to vote in another thread. Charging someone for a universal human right is not the same as charging someone to register the gun they choose to purchase. And we do require voter registration...at least I think that is what the card I have in my outbox is for...

I suspect a well regulated militia in the days of yore involved gun registrations and owner tracking. For whenever the British returned or when Indians needed killing.

I thought I was clear that I am not anti-gun ownership.

[soonerintn]

The right to vote is not universal. Look around the globe. It isn't even universal in the US(under 18, felons).

[soonerintn]

Ok. Well I can argue the rig to vote in another thread. Charging someone for a universal human right is not the same as charging someone to register the gun they choose to purchase.

I suspect a well regulated militia in the days of yore involved gun registrations and owner tracking. For whenever the British returned or when Indians needed killing.

I thought I was clear that I am not anti-gun ownership.

But my point is that you are OK with creating a burden to one right, but not ok with creating a burden to another right.

[OnlyOneOklahoma]

But my point is that you are OK with creating a burden to one right, but not ok with creating a burden to another right.

There is a fundamental difference in the right given to citizens to participate in the democratic process and the one granting them the right to bear arms in a well regulated militia.

We require voter registration. Where is the gun registration? He'll it doesn't even have to be a tax. It can be free and still be compulsory.

[brokebacksooner]

Didn't or weren't allowed to?

Not sure. If they weren't allowed to then it would set historical precendence that some restrictions were allowed. If they didn't by choice then it would seem they felt that there were certain lines that weren't to be crossed despite living in a more dangerous world (at least those on the frontier). Of course it could just be that those who wanted/needed one, couldn't afford it...

[Sancho]

Yeah, that came out poorly. I will even "like" your post.

We are given the right to vote when we turn 18. A gun is not just handed over by the government to a person.

Surely you can comprehend the difference between a universal human right and gun ownership.

Voting is not a universal human right. Interestingly enough even in the US the right to vote for President is not protected by the Constitution while the right to own a gun is. Frankly, you are simply wrong on all counts.

[OnlyOneOklahoma]

Voting is not a universal human right. Interestingly enough even in the US the right to vote for President is not protected by the Constitution while the right to own a gun is. Frankly, you are simply wrong on all counts.

From the Declaration of Human Rights

Article 21

1 . Everyone has the right to take part in the government of his country, directly or through freely chosen representatives.

2. Everyone has the right to equal access to public service in his country.

3. The will of the people shall be the basis of the authority of government; this will shall be expressed in periodic and genuine elections which shall be by universal and equal suffrage and shall be held by secret vote or by equivalent free voting procedures.

Kindly focus on the 2nd amendment, because your argument about taxing poor people to vote is falling apart.

[soonerintn]

There is a fundamental difference in the right given to citizens to participate in the democratic process and the one granting them the right to bear arms in a well regulated militia.

We require voter registration. Where is the gun registration? He'll it doesn't even have to be a tax. It can be free and still be compulsory.

When you buy a gun, you have to have a background check and a photo Id.

You aren't brought a ballot and you aren't brought a gun. It requires active participation.

[oucub23]

From the Declaration of Human Rights


Kindly focus on the 2nd amendment, because your argument about taxing poor people to vote is falling apart.

Wait. UN? Someone just nuked the fridge.

[OnlyOneOklahoma]

Wait. UN? Someone just nuked the fridge.

Do you know who wrote the Universal Declaration of Human Rights?

[oucub23]

http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/drafters.shtml is what the UN site says. I didn't til I looked it up--it didn't matter in regards to the argument at hand. Seems to matter less w/that group.

[Sinatra]

I see the first part as the key. I see it as the founding fathers wanted the people to have guns, so that when the government called upon the militia to protect the "state" the government wouldn't have to worry about providing guns and ammo to the soldiers. The FF were suspicious of a professional army.

Given that there were around 50 drafters of each of the first ten amendments, can you cite specifically which of those 50 or so did and did not want the people to have guns, as you state above?

[oucub23]

Given that there were around 50 drafters of each of the first ten amendments, can you cite specifically which of those 50 or so did and did not want the people to have guns, as you state above?

What possible difference does it make? Secondly, I doubt BB can. I know I can't. Can you?

[Sinatra]

What possible difference does it make? Secondly, I doubt BB can. I know I can't. Can you?

BB is telling us what the founding fathers' intent was in drafting the second amendment. My question goes to which of the fifty or so founding fathers' intent he's relying on. As I'm sure you know, they were not all on the same page.

On edit: Justices Scalia and Thomas would tear into you if you were arguing in front of the Supremes and asked your first question above ("[W]hat possible difference does it make?") Well, Scalia would but Thomas wouldn't, given that he rarely says a word during oral argument.)

[Sancho]

From the Declaration of Human Rights


Kindly focus on the 2nd amendment, because your argument about taxing poor people to vote is falling apart.

Oh I get it know, UN documents trump the US Constitution - the next logical progression for the government worshiper.

The fact remains that in the United States you do not have a Constitutional right to vote for the president while you do have a Constitutional right to bear arms. Get out of here with your bull**** "taxing poor people" argument because it only works against you in a 2nd Amendment debate.

[SpankyNek]

Oh I get it know, UN documents trump the US Constitution - the next logical progression for the government worshiper.

He didn't say it trumps it...he was simply declaring he right as universal. The US constitution is limited by geography.

What do you think Locke and Rousseau would classify the right to vote as?

The fact remains that in the United States you do not have a Constitutional right to vote for the president while you do have a Constitutional right to bear arms. Get out of here with your bull**** "taxing poor people" argument because it only works against you in a 2nd Amendment debate.

The question is whether or not if there are limits placed upon these rights, (limits implemented in the manner directed by the Constitution) are they still rights?

You have argued ad nauseum hat they still are...therefore you should wholeheartedly agree that voting is a right whether it is in the Constitution or not.