Despite some contemporary opinion, there is no historical evidence, except for a bit of Thomas Jefferson’s political writings, that the Second Amendment to the Constitution was designed to ensure that Americans could, if necessary, rise to remove a tyrannical government.
The Founding Fathers had fought hard through a nasty rebellion, and did not want to empower citizens to fight another one.
The founders fostered and promoted local militias to eliminate the need for large standing armies or federal militias — which indeed might be used for tyrannical purposes. Popular militias were designed to replace federal soldiery, not to fight it. This was about law enforcement. The amendment itself reads quite conservatively, with a “well-regulated militia” (no rabble wanted) to support the “security of a free state.”
Some Constitutional thinkers who cite the amendment as empowerment for rebellion are flamboyantly reinterpreting the amendment to meet a perceived 21st century need.
Richard Sibley
Gilbert
truth posted at 3:54 pm on Tue, Jan 22, 2013.
My biggest fear is if we don't do something to stop these sensless shootings we could lose our rights to bear arms.
DonMey posted at 4:59 pm on Tue, Jan 22, 2013.
My comment was killed as SPAM. So I'll point out, rather than try and reproduce the actual quotes:
There are quotes by Washington, Adams, Jefferson, Madison, and I'm sure I can keep looking and find more founding fathers who specifically stated the 2nd Amendment is for the people, and that it is a check against the government.
What say you now?
Rich posted at 7:47 pm on Tue, Jan 22, 2013.
I suppose the SPAM killer will kill the quotes I was about to post as well. So I'll simply say that you are a bit misinformed Richard. The Second Amendment was specifically designed as a check on governmental power. Furthermore, most of the founders endorsed the idea of revolution should the government grow too large or powerful. Which is actually pretty well stated in the Declaration of Independence that many of them signed.
Truth, the government is, in a sense, engineering these senseless shootings by creating gun free zones, banning weapons to make them untraceable, which create killing fields. If I thought they were bright enough, or competent enough to engage in a conspiracy, I'd say so, but really I just think they are so stupid they actually think such things work.
bobunf posted at 9:17 am on Wed, Jan 23, 2013.
Such things do work in the rest of the world.
No country in the world has a gun ownership rate approaching that of the US. There are 40 countries with per capita GDP in excess of $20,000 per year and population in excess of 300,000. Of those, 35 countries have homicide rates less than half that of the US. The averages for countries other than the US is:
Gun ownership - one fifth the rate of the US.
Murder - one fourth the rate of the US.
As for fighting a tyrannical government. Really? One with 10,000 nuclear warheads?
No matter what the founders thought, there is no way an armed citizenry can oppose the US government. - unless you want citizens armed with Apache helicopters equipped with cannons, grenade launchers, cruise missiles, M2 machine guns, M60 machine guns, or M134s (only 4,000 rounds per minute), tanks, Howitzers.
Not to mention an air force with B1s equipped with daisy cutter, cluster and air bombs with the occasional nuke, and a host of other aircraft. And a Navy with aircraft carriers and nuclear powered submarines equipped with nuclear missiles.
bobunf posted at 9:31 am on Wed, Jan 23, 2013.
And when was the last time an armed citizenry actually opposed a tyrannical government with their guns?
Where is there an historical example of an armed citizenry successfully opposing a tyrannical government?
bobunf posted at 9:32 am on Wed, Jan 23, 2013.
1917 in Russia;? No, the insurgents had virtually no weapons except chunks of ice.
The uprising in Tunisia in 2010? Tunisia with a gun ownership rate of one per 1,000 people - the lowest in the world.
Egypt, and Libya in 2011 and 2012? With gun ownership rates of 4% and 17% that of the US.
Or Yemen, after decades of civil war, with a gun ownership rate of 62% that of the US. The highest in the world except for the US.
Syria in 2012 with a gun ownership rate 4% of that of the US?
Where is the historical example??
DonMey posted at 10:23 am on Wed, Jan 23, 2013.
Bob - You gave examples, and then purposefully gave misleading data to downplay it actually happened. 4 out of 100 people in Syria owned a gun. Assuming that data is accurate, it most likely wasn't updated to include the thousands of weapons that were then flooded into the area from outside sources. Sources that either expected lots of money and/or an exchange of power in return for the arsenals.
chatmandu002 posted at 11:19 am on Wed, Jan 23, 2013.
If the government wants my gun then they can pry it from my dead hand and if millions of other citizens think the same as I, maybe the government will think twice about trying to take our guns. If the government starts killing it's citizens to get their guns then what kind of nation will you have?
Masterrogue666 posted at 12:19 pm on Wed, Jan 23, 2013.
@Richard: I googled the term MILITIA. The two definitions that followed:
1.A military force of civilians to supplement a regular army in an emergency.
2.A military force that engages in rebel activities.
So, then I googled the term CILVILIAN. The first definition is as follows:
A person not in the armed services or the police force.
So, when you stated: "Popular militias were designed to replace federal soldiery, not to fight it.", clearly you misconstrued what a militia is all about.
Our founding fathers set up a system of checks and balances. There are three major branches of our government. The military is suppose to follow the orders of the Commander in Chief (President). What's to stop the military from assuming power? An ARMED CIVILIAN POPULACE. Yep, you got it, another check and balance!
They knew FIRST HAND how important it is having your citizens armed! Why would they write anything that would not support it?
You were on the right track with: "The Founding Fathers had fought hard through a nasty rebellion". Perhaps you misunderstand what the word "REBELLION" means. It's as follows:
1.An act of violent or open resistance to an established government or ruler.
2.The action or process of resisting authority, control, or convention.
It's "CRYSTAL CLEAR" to me that our citizens should remained armed, in case one day our current system of government becomes something else.
VofReason posted at 12:56 pm on Wed, Jan 23, 2013.
Fair to question the types of weapontry that regular citizens should possess. I have heard many definitions for assualt weapons, but cannot understand why regular citizens should own one. That said, every responsible citizen should have a firearm to protect themself and their family. As much faith as we should have in the Police, they cannot help you at 2 am if a person who wishes you harm breaks through your window.
Bluepoet posted at 1:50 pm on Wed, Jan 23, 2013.
If a government starts killing its citizens to get their guns, you'll have a nation of dead gun owners, and a tyrannical government, with a huge stockpile of weapons, and nothing to use them on. It's nothing more than a sef-fulfilling prophecy. It presupposes that, at some point, it is inevitable that the government will do so. It also presupposes the fallacy that guns are a deterrent to such tyranny.
If We are the government (the definition of democracy, and even representative democracy), then arming the citizens for any more than defense against criminals, is tantamount to suicide.
That's if we are a representative democracy. Personally, I don't think we are. I think we live in a Plutocracy, in which case, there is no need to take away the guns of the citizenry. There is no need to disarm us..there's only the need to manipulate our fears, and our illusions of freedom.
Cerulean posted at 6:41 pm on Wed, Jan 23, 2013.
All I know is that Wayne La Pierre is a lunatic. He is out in deep water, gasping for air, searching for language to harbor his filthy soul.
onerebel posted at 9:19 pm on Wed, Jan 23, 2013.
So Mr. Bobunf, your going to tell us the U.S. military is going to ignore the Constitution they swore to defend, and start shooting THEIR OWN FRIENDS AND FAMILIES? It's in the Constitution the military can not be used against the people. As for a historical example of where guns saved the People from the a government? Have you heard of the Revolutionary War? How about all the examples of how taking guns from the people enslaved them? Thanks for the heads up, It appears if the government comes looking for OUR guns you will be the one turning people in.
Cerulean, are you sure your not talking about Obama?
Masterrogue666 posted at 12:49 am on Thu, Jan 24, 2013.
Bluepoet: Do you think oil will last forever? When resources become scare, and anarchy starts to rear it's head, I'd bet most civilians would rather have a firearm, than not have one.
Want a fairly recent reason? Check this out:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1992_Los_Angeles_riots
Pay SPECIAL ATTENTION to the section under "Second day (Thursday, April 30)".
Personally, I want to be as BETTER armed (or as well armed) as I KNOW criminals always seem to be, some by our own government during OBAMA'S watch!
Masterrogue666 posted at 12:52 am on Thu, Jan 24, 2013.
I forgot to mention one last point. What is trying to be controlled is VIOLENCE. If a person wants to kill more than one person quickly, there are a variety of ways to go about doing that, which don't have to involve guns.
Bluepoet posted at 2:43 pm on Thu, Jan 24, 2013.
Master, So you subscribe to the "Zombie Apocalypse" dystopia, or the "Beyond Thunderdome" one?
Well, at least you have imagination.
I favor the Twilight Zone version--you know--the one where just one man wakes up to find himself totally alone in the world. Or, my favorte, from Kurt Vonnegut's "Cat's Cradle", where a substance is invented, called "icenine", that changes all water to ice, instantly...and, sure enough, it escapes the lab.
sockratties posted at 11:32 am on Fri, Jan 25, 2013.
onereb... how do you relate your analogy to the Civil War? The ability to rage war creates war. And that war was said to be about slavery but it was a political war between the industrial North and the agricultural South.
Remember the old question "What if you threw a war and nobody came?"
Well not very likely if everyone has a gun and is just "itchin" to use it.