Our Constitution`s Second Amendment: OUR FOUNDERS MEANING!

[johnwk]

Originally Posted by johnwk
What did our founders mean when adding the following words to our federal Constitution?

Thank you for the post.

But we are being subjected to dangerous extremist fascist usurpations disguised as "EXECUTIVE ORDERS"

.

I agree with you. Indeed, the Obama Administration, along with our Supreme Court and Congress, is acting in rebellion to our Constitution. And, the 2nd Amendment was thoughtfully put into our Constitution by our Founders so the people, if they should decide to reject tyranny and maintain a free State, would be well armed to deal with tyranny. I believe that time is fast approaching.


JWK


America we have a problem! We have a group of DOMESTIC ENEMIES who have managed to gain political power and whose mission is in fact to bring “change” to America ___ the dismantling of our military defensive power; the disarming of the American Citizen; the allowance of our borders to be overrun by foreign invaders, the diluting of our election process by allowing ineligible persons to vote; the circumvention of our Republican Form of Government which is now replaced with a 12 member committee vested with power to make law; the destruction of our manufacturing capabilities; the transferring of America’s technology to hostile foreign nations; the strangulation of our agricultural industry and ability to produce food under the guise of environmental necessity; the destruction of our nation’s health care delivery system, the taking of private property for purposes other than “public use”; the interference with our ability to develop our natural resources, namely oil, coal and natural gas to fuel our economy; the looting of both our federal treasury and a mandatory retirement pension fund; the brainwashing of our nation’s children in government operated schools; the trashing of our nation’s traditions and moral values; the creation of an iron fisted control unauthorized by our written Constitution over America’s businesses and industries; the devaluation of our nation’s currency, and, the future enslavement of our children and grand children via unbridled debt and inflation, not to mention an iron fisted government which intends to rule their very lives!

[Phineas Finn]

There's a great deal of talk about "the people" needing to be armed to the point where they can "rise up against tyranny."

Who are these people? Who gets to decide? Who determines the dividing lines among pseudo-revolutionaries, street thugs, religious zealots, organized criminals, ideological jihadists, and an outraged public reacting to tyranny?

Does Jim Jones get to decide? Does Timothy McVeigh get to decide? Does the Uni-Bomber get to decide? Does David Koresh get to decide?

Or most frightening: Does johnwk get to decide?

[soultrain]

There's a great deal of talk about "the people" needing to be armed to the point where they can "rise up against tyranny."

Who are these people? Who gets to decide? Who determines the dividing lines among pseudo-revolutionaries, street thugs, religious zealots, organized criminals, ideological jihadists, and an outraged public reacting to tyranny?

Does Jim Jones get to decide? Does Timothy McVeigh get to decide? Does the Uni-Bomber get to decide? Does David Koresh get to decide?

Or most frightening: Does johnwk get to decide?

That remains to be seen, but the weak will be separated from the herd

[songfourone]

So you're over here singing the same song?

How do you conclude, pray tell, that progressives (broad brush) are "inherently violent"?

(this oughta' be GOOD)

LOL this coming from a poster with the name SemiAuto

[Phineas Finn]

That remains to be seen, but the weak will be separated from the herd

Ah, so the difference between you and a Muslim Jihadist is . . . ?

Nonexistent.

Seriously though, I really didn't expect an answer -- particularly from the usual suspects, in spite of all their talk about the rule of law on other topics.

[Phineas Finn]

Of course they exist but its a moot point anyway. It doesn't matter if no overthrows ever happened because the point is the 2nd amendment was included in the Constitution to allow for it here if necessary. You say it can't happen but that doesn't negate the fact that it is the reason the 2nd amendment exists.

That's pure unadulterated bunk.

Political statements made to garner support from among the reluctant notwithstanding, do you really think that Madison, et al. were insane enough to sit around and design a govenment with a self-destruct button?

Your argument -- yet again -- goes on as if the beginning of the 2nd Amendment did not exist.

If they had meant that the average citizen needed to be armed as a check against the government, the amendment would have said so. Now, tell me how the meant all along that a well-regulated militia existed to fight the government.

[Dryfire]

That's pure unadulterated bunk.

Political statements made to garner support from among the reluctant notwithstanding, do you really think that Madison, et al. were insane enough to sit around and design a govenment with a self-destruct button?

Your argument -- yet again -- goes on as if the beginning of the 2nd Amendment did not exist.

If they had meant that the average citizen needed to be armed as a check against the government, the amendment would have said so. Now, tell me how the meant all along that a well-regulated militia existed to fight the government.

C'mon Phin, even you don't believe what you just wrote.

Self destruct button. They sure did and they knew the only way to preserve that freedom was the possibility of an overthrow of the existing government by force if necessary.

There are numerous references to the militia as the body of the people and the right to bear arms is for protection of all enemies be it foreign or domestic.

Many of the framers wrote about it. Here are some of their quotes:

http://econfaculty.gmu.edu/wew/quotes/arms.html

[Smokey 1]

That's pure unadulterated bunk.

Not according to the Federalist Papers.

Political statements made to garner support from among the reluctant notwithstanding, do you really think that Madison, et al. were insane enough to sit around and design a govenment with a self-destruct button?

Yes they did. They knew how easily a good government could go bad so they included the right to bear arms as a check against a rogue government.

Your argument -- yet again -- goes on as if the beginning of the 2nd Amendment did not exist.

If they had meant that the average citizen needed to be armed as a check against the government, the amendment would have said so. Now, tell me how the meant all along that a well-regulated militia existed to fight the government.

The amendment was the law the explanation was in the Federalist Papers.

[The Shadow]

Amazing! The Founding Fathers repeatedly made their intentions clear, and there are many examples posted here. But if it isn't what the Libs want to hear, as far as these Leftists are concerned, they could care less, and will just ignore it, as if the Founding Fathers never said it at all.

[Phineas Finn]

Will someone answer the question -- who are these people that the framers believed had the right to decide when and where this "peoples' militia" would spring into action and overthrow the government?

The link above:

• "To suppose arms in the hands of citizens, to be used at individual discretion, except in private self-defense, or by partial orders of towns, countries or districts of a state, is to demolish every constitution, and lay the laws prostrate, so that liberty can be enjoyed by no man; it is a dissolution of the government. The fundamental law of the militia is, that it be created, directed and commanded by the laws, and ever for the support of the laws."--John Adams, A Defense of the Constitutions of the United States 475 (1787-1788)
  
• "Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States. A military force, at the command of Congress, can execute no laws, but such as the people perceive to be just and constitutional; for they will possess the power, and jealousy will instantly inspire the inclination, to resist the execution of a law which appears to them unjust and oppressive."--Noah Webster, An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution (Philadelphia 1787).
  
• "The right of the people to keep and bear ... arms shall not be infringed. A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country ..."-- James Madison, I Annals of Congress 434, June 8, 1789

The quotes make it clear that the framers feared the existence of a standing army. Guess what: That ship has sailed.

Are you all going to argue that now that we have a standing army, we need to arm "the people" to an equal degree?

If made reality, the arguments put forward here would degenerate our nation into a short-lived collection of waring factions in which bands of lunatics, whipped into a rage by media icons, claim to be exempt from laws they do not like.

[Hexexis]

...It was just about a bunch of angry white men! ...

Doesn't help that now it's only buncha angry white guys w/ Droids tryna explain what was "in the minds" ("mind," of course, being a metaphor for something else likewise not taught in schools) of 18th-cent. patricians. Welcome to Keystone Korporatchiks!

[Hexexis]

...I guess those that disagree with this Supreme Court ruling would be the ones who are out on the fringe.

Well, considering the recent (past 40-50 yr) plethora of SCotUS decisions being otherwise challenged by those nasty irritants, the "we the people," maybe it's the Supreme Court (slipping into formation w/ those other 2 branches of gov.) that's out on the fringe.

[jessup270]

We always hear what a great document the Constitution is and how it is forms the foundation of our nation.

It could very well that the fully lawful Second Amendment will be the downfall of this nation.

The average citizen does not really understand how massively destructive firearms are to this nation.

The damage firearms have done to this nation is incalculable, in terms of blood and treasure lost.

Lincoln once said that the demise of this great nation shall not come from some foreign army, its demise shall come from within.

Due to the very presence of firearms, massive numbers of US cities are crumbling into decay and wastelands because of the mass presence of firearms.

People have fled the urban areas to the suburbs, now the suburbs are getting to be taken over by gun violence.

Soon there will be no place to flee.

Because the Second Amendment is fully lawful, there is very little America can do about this nation's demise.

[Dryfire]

Will someone answer the question -- who are these people that the framers believed had the right to decide when and where this "peoples' militia" would spring into action and overthrow the government?

You know that question is impossible to answer since nobody can predict the future.

Who knows until it happens? Who was calling the shots for the 99 percent?

Uprisings happen all the time. Look at the European nations of late. Uprisings in Greece, Italy, Great Britain, etc. Egypt, Libya, Syria and many other middle east nations have gone against their governments. Our own civil war is another prime example.

[ivanbalt]

Due to the very presence of firearms, massive numbers of US cities are crumbling into decay and wastelands because of the mass presence of firearms.

Or it might have something to do with the "War on Drugs".

[jessup270]

Or it might have something to do with the "War on Drugs".

The US conceded the war on drugs a long time ago.

When you have police publicly acknowledging the existence of multiple "open air" drug markets in their jurisdictions, you know the war on drugs is lost.

Really strange state of police affairs when police, ticket soccer moms at radar check points, yet these same police admit to knowing that open air drug markets are conducting drug sales.

[Wizard777]

The Federalist Papers should be required reading for all citizens. Kids should read this as part of civics class. Of course, it doesn't happen...kids these days know a little about the history of the country but nothing about it's founding. It was just about a bunch of angry white men! LOL

Accordingly, guns should unnecessary with a State takeover of militias, right! Government twists the militia argument all kinds of ways to control guns because of the threat of insurrection. The unarmed are sheeple to these folks!

Ironically enough the second amendment is supposed to preserve that threat of "insurrection." It's, in part, a guard against the tyranny and oppression of standing Army's. Another guard we have against that is control of the military being turned over the civil authority of the people when we are not at war. That was discussed by people attending the Constitutional Conventions. So there is a take back the government element to it also. Sometimes you must defend the state by reclaiming it's government from those who twist and pervert it.

[Phineas Finn]

Ironically enough the second amendment is supposed to preserve that threat of "insurrection." It's, in part, a guard against the tyranny and oppression of standing Army's. Another guard we have against that is control of the military being turned over the civil authority of the people when we are not at war. That was discussed by people attending the Constitutional Conventions. So there is a take back the government element to it also. Sometimes you must defend the state by reclaiming it's government from those who twist and pervert it.

But how do you mesh that with the fact that we have a standing army, have had one for a long, long time?

[SemiAuto]

There's a great deal of talk about "the people" needing to be armed to the point where they can "rise up against tyranny."

Who are these people? Who gets to decide? Who determines the dividing lines among pseudo-revolutionaries, street thugs, religious zealots, organized criminals, ideological jihadists, and an outraged public reacting to tyranny?

Does Jim Jones get to decide? Does Timothy McVeigh get to decide? Does the Uni-Bomber get to decide? Does David Koresh get to decide?

Or most frightening: Does johnwk get to decide?

Do you get to decide?

I imagine there is some sort of tipping point. Some point where enough people have had enough of the predations of the government that is supposed to protect them. At some point it will become the norm, not the exception, that revolting against the government is acceptable.

Is the country at that point now? Probably not. Are the big government predations of the inherently violent progressive ideology bringing that day closer? Almost certainly. I hope things don't come to violence but violence begets violence and I worry that is what is in store.

[Phineas Finn]

Do you get to decide?

I imagine there is some sort of tipping point. Some point where enough people have had enough of the predations of the government that is supposed to protect them. At some point it will become the norm, not the exception, that revolting against the government is acceptable.

Is the country at that point now? Probably not. Are the big government predations of the inherently violent progressive ideology bringing that day closer? Almost certainly. I hope things don't come to violence but violence begets violence and I worry that is what is in store.

Armed anarchy, what a warm and fuzzy thought.

If it ever comes to the government versus the NRA-Tea Party-Ayn Rand crowd, I know whose side I won't be on.