The Second Amendment is a Relic - Its Purpose is Long Past.

Gee some people here just have no idea do you? Taking guns off people doesn't solve anything it might stop a massacre here and there but it doesn't stop crims bashing down your door raping your wife and maybe killing the pair of you and your kids for all your belongings imagine that with a gun involved that you have to protect yourself are they going to get away with everything then? I live in Aus and see your second amendment as something this country should have had as well now home invasions have gone up and asaults have gone up. We even have our criminal element having shootouts everywhere yet guns were made illegal, how are these people getting them? It just shows that if someone wants a gun they will find a way of getting them. You might even remember the news that we had a military base broken into and stole guns. We even have gun owners who have to lock their guns up and have it unloaded being broken into and bashed and having weapons stolen. We even have politicians here that don't give a damn what their citizens want or think and if you go for bans you will be headed in our direction

Originally posted by jude11

The purpose of the Second Amendment was to prevent the new Federal Government established in 1789 from disarming the state militias and replacing them with a Federal standing army.

With the rise of the Police State, it means more now then it ever did. These are the times and circumstances for which it was written.

Peace

All you people whining about a fascist police state would be the last to do anything about it. You wouldn't take up arms against them. None of you! Instead you'd cower inside and bitch on the internet just like you are doing now.

IRM

Originally posted by Julie Washington

"There is thus no constitutional protection whatsoever for the semiautomatic rifle that killed the kids in Newtown."

The Second Amendment is a relic of the founding era more than two centuries ago. Its purpose is long past. As Justice John Paul Stevens argues persuasively, the amendment should not block the ability of society to keep itself safe through gun control legislation. That was never its intent. This amendment was about militias in the 1790s, and the fear of the anti-federalists of a federal army. Since that issue is long moot, we need not be governed in our national life by doctrines on now-extinct militias from the 18th century.

Source

This is an excellent article the explains the reasons the 2nd amendment was created, and how it's been used in the SCOTUS.

The purpose of the Second Amendment was to prevent the new Federal Government established in 1789 from disarming the state militias and replacing them with a Federal standing army. It was a concern that was relevant perhaps for a few years around the birth of the country. It is irrelevant today. Americans do not rely on state militias in 2012 for our freedom from the federal government

Now is the time to establish new gun control laws and perhaps an all out ban on all automatic and semi automatic weapons.

You may not believe in the right to have a semi-automatic weapon, but I do. The second amendment was for the people to have a way to stand up against a tyrannical government and have a chance to win. These shootings, although tragic, could have been pulled off with weapons that were not guns as well - should we ban them too? Banning firearms for all is a step in the wrong direction and gives the government more power over us as citizens. Open your eyes, OP. Seriously.

reply to post by Julie Washington


I am sorry but you are being a little biased here. Its MAIN purpose is personal protection. The second purpose is for militias, which we are still legally able to have. I will not say it is so that we can defy the government. It may be for a state to have its own armed forces in the form of an armed civilian force for an extreme emergency. That is completely secondary to its main and most important function which is the RIGHT TO PERSONAL PROTECTION and that of your property and possessions.

So no.

What do you guys want, a pat on the back from someone in office?

here is the main reason why they want to take our weapons away.
www.abovetopsecret.com...

it is agenda 21 proponents being callous and not letting a tragedy like this one go to waste to further their agenda.

The kids bodies weren't even cold yet before the media went on a blitzkrieg like was done in the UK to confiscate their guns laws. Look how that has panned out. Crime rates sky rocketed.

This is just close minded liberals going against guns because it is something conservatives value. Petty BS.

We can not lose ANY liberties at this point. It is becoming a trend to do so.

I am sorry, but the US will NEVER give into this sort of hype and media frenzy.

Originally posted by MentorsRiddle
This exact mode of thinking: "The old generation's ideas don't pertain to today," is a disgrace....

It goes against our bill of rights, and everything America stands for.

Irrelevant my white behind…

Shame on the writer of this, and anyone who supports it.

So logically you are for re-introducing slavery in your country.

reply to post by Krusty the Klown


no it's the same sort of tactic they used in the UK. The traditional conservatives were made out to be crazy playing on the youth to "stand up" to the generation they always saw as their Authority figures. It was then also made into a left VS right campaign. They are hoping that we are so divided amongst partisan BS that we will surrender our liberties by pitting us against each other.

Like the Hitler youth was made to "stand up" to their elders and trust the "new vision" of the future so as to change the country. Same bull crap.

" Out with the old in with the new, and hey kids, YOU CAN MAKE IT HAPPEN. How powerful you are indeed........by sticking it to your parents generation, you are actually sticking it to the "MAN"....*puts tongue in cheek."

Now take their guns and see how pissed they get. You are sooo bad ass....that will teach them not to buy you the new Iphone. They are sooo lame.....

reply to post by zedVSzardoz


I can see where you're coming from, but the implications of the words that I replied to are still valid and relevant to the OP.

Like the poster I replied to, slavery was perfectly acceptable in the Bill of Rights but has since been recognised as unacceptable in a modern setting. The implications to gun control can be seen to be the same.

How many massacres were committed by a single shooter when the Constitution was drawn up? If these massacres were common then, the law may have been written differently.

All legal systems evolve with time, why should gun laws be exempt?

reply to post by Julie Washington


Its incredible that you actually think that guns in the hands of americans isnt doing anything to stop a tyrannical gov from forcefully taking control of the people and that just a vote would change things....did u happen to be around while the elections were going on a few months ago? Id rather be the guy with the bigger stick than with you casting a ballot believing in a non violent revolution. You should read a little bit of history and see how it turned out for the rest of the people who thought like you.

reply to post by Krusty the Klown


so by that logic the crazy crap in the bible makes the rest of it useless today......


YET, it is not.

baby, you got to go with the bath water.....

reply to post by zedVSzardoz


Right.

I'm not actually sure what you're inferring there.

Can you spell it out for me a bit more?

reply to post by Krusty the Klown


well that the winds of change provide an opportunity to change the very fabric of the country we so love. That the issue is not that guns are a problem but that this one incident is being used to promote the disarmament of the civilian population in the USS by pitting the youth and liberal parts of the population against the conservatives and right wingers, and so the AGENDA 21 proponents like the Bush family and the globalists hope to make this a left VS right issue and a young VS old issue, so as to strip us of yet another liberty.

The old is not the enemy, the right is not the enemy, The globalists agenda 21 IS, and that calls for a total disarmament of the US.

In the UK it was done in two phases. First the partial banning through eliminating the high caliber arms, then riding on public sentiment and the divide THEY created the total ban was put into effect. As per the needs of Agenda 21.

That is what I am saying.

You never let a serious crisis go to waste. And what I mean by that it's an opportunity to do things you think you could not do before.
Rahm Emanuel

I explain it here
www.abovetopsecret.com...

reply to post by zedVSzardoz

Oh, OK.

So using the UK as per your example, how many mass shootings or police state inconveniences to the populace has there been since they banned assault rifles?

Particularly since their Bobbies don't even carry guns, only police SWAT teams?

reply to post by Krusty the Klown


shootings aside, we can talk about the massive spike in crime rates after the ban in the UK instead......

I mean come on, Scotland is the most violent crime ridden country in the developed world now....sooooo.

I don't think things are better because of it. And if you want to talk about stabbings and other forms of homicide, we can.

EDIT:

But yes, the government and police have it easier on them, its just unbearable for the citizenry. no big deal......

EDIT:
I suggest a great movie to watch to see just how safe the UK is. It is a dramatization of the real world consequences of an impotent nation against criminality, but it is not that far off either. It was awesome too.

www.imdb.com...

LewsTherinThelamon:

Show us with any of the writings of our founding fathers, where they said that the second amendment only applied to "the militia." I don't want some guys opinion about the intentions of the founders. They wrote their thoughts down. Read them.

There are various versions of the line pertaining to the 'right to bear arms', but only two lines punctuated differently need concern us, because one was passed by congress and the other was ratified by the states.

The congress line:

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 states ratified line:

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.

We can dismiss the personal and private thoughts of the Founders as they didn't get passed by congress, nor were they ratified by any of the states. Regardless of what they thought to themselves, it is irrelevant to the debate. There own thoughts, not being included in statements passed by congress or ratified by the other states, carry no lawful power.

Even a cursory glance at both of the lines discerns the 'plurality' of their statements, there really isn't anything 'singular' or pertaining to the 'individual' at all. "A militia" is a group (plural), "the right of the people" pertains to a group (plural), "to keep and bear arms" (plural). You cannot take a 'singular' context for the 'individual', from what is a 'plural' context of 'group', it's there in black and white!

There is further evidence in 'Article 1, section 8' of the constitution which codifies the power of congress "To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia." In other words, the militia are provided with arms by those overseeing the 'organizing' and the 'disciplining' of the assembled group of men through the ratified power of congress.

In order for the right to bear arms to pertain to the individual, the line would need to state something like the following..."A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the individual (not people) to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." However, it doesn't say this, and not without good reason.

Just as it is right for the people to be 'duty bound' to be wary of the possibility of a tyrannical government, for the maintaining and defence of social order, Federal and State governments are 'duty bound' on behalf of the people to be wary of insurrection and sedition, defending against attempts of coup d'ét and the possibility of a tyrannical government as a result. A nation of armed individuals raises the threat of insurrection and sedition more so than a threat of a tyrannical government. In order for a country or nation to enjoy a stable and free society, there has to be a balance of power between the people governed by their consent, and those whom they elect to govern them.

This compromise of 'power' between the people and government is overseen by a greater power than that of arms...checks and balances. Both the senate and congress are duty bound on behalf of the people to exercise their consented powers to check and balance the powers of the executive. To not allow for any power grabs by the executive for its own purposes. This is where the 'people' come in and exercise their power, not through the weilding of arms, but of pens and the vote. If neither the senate nor congress check and balance the power of the executive to the people's satisfaction, they replace them by their votes, not by their arms. Only as a last resort, when all peaceful and democratic options have been resorted to and failed, can it be necessary for the drawing up of militias to eject the rogue executive by force.

Individuals do not need to be armed against the threat of a tyrannical government, they have the greater power than that of the gun with the senate, congress, and the vote to protect them, and they have the power of federal government to protect them from insurrection and sedition. The only other claim for the individual to be armed is for defence against another individual so armed, but it is the duty and employment of federal and state governments and their agencies to ensure a defence of the individual, his family, and his property.

Allowing the individual to be armed for his own defence, means that all individuals are able to be armed for his own defence, even if their actions are being committed out of criminal intent. This raises the prospect of armed conflict between individuals rather than diminishes it. A person with a criminal intent will not come unarmed because of his fear that the victim will be so armed, and rather than the victim having a gun being a deterent, it becomes nothing more than a balancing of power. Being armed does not deter criminal intent.

reply to post by elysiumfire


The fourteenth amendment clears that up for you. It was made in part to clarify that if blacks were freed from slavery then the state can not infringe on their personal right to bear arms like any citizen.

III. DOES THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT
INCORPORATE THE SECOND AMENDMENT?
The only mention by the United States Supreme Court of the right to keep and bear arms before the Fourteenth Amendment was passed found the right to be protected from any infringement, including the state slave codes. In the Dred Scott decision, Chief Justice Taney wrote that citizenship "would give to persons of the negro race .. the full liberty of speech ... and (the right) to keep and carry arms wherever they went." Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393, 417 (1857). In other words, if blacks were citizens, then the Second Amendment would invalidate state laws which prohibited firearms possession by such citizens.

The Fourteenth Amendment was intended to eradicate the black codes, under which "Negroes were not allowed to bear arms or to appear in all public places..." Bell v. Maryland, 378 U.S. 226, 247-48 &n.3 (1964) (Douglas, J., concurring). In his concurring opinion in Duncan v. Louisiana, 391 U.S. 145, 166-67 (1968), Justice Black recalled the following words of Senator Jacob M. Howard in introducing the amendment to the Senate in 1866: "The personal rights guaranteed and secured by the first eight amendments of the Constitution; such as ... the right to keep and bear arms .... The great object of the first section of this amendment is, therefore, to restrain the power of the States and compel them at all times to respect these great fundamental guarantees."

The Supreme Court has never determined whether the Fourteenth Amendment protects the right to keep and bear arms from state infringement. However, Malloy v. Hogan, 378 U.S. 1,5 (1964) states: "The Court has not hesitated to reexamine past decisions according the Fourteenth Amendment a less central role in the preservation of basic liberties than that which was contemplated by its Framers when they added the Amendment to our constitutional scheme.''[14]

The same two-thirds of Congress which proposed the Fourteenth Amendment also passed an enactment declaring that the fundamental rights of "personal liberty" and "personal (p.17)security" include "the constitutional right to bear arms." Freedmen's Bureau Act, §14, 14 Stat. 176 (July 16, 1866). This Act, and the companion Civil Rights Act of 1866, sought to guarantee the same rights that the Fourteenth Amendment was adopted to protect.

www.guncite.com...

Once you start tinkering with the Constitution and its individually conferred rights then you open up the entire document to reinterpretation. Maybe we dont need a freedom of the press because we dont have town criers and pamphlets any more we now have the internet and anybody (even a terrorist) can post threats, disinformation, etc so maybe we should shut that down. Maybe given the will of certain terrorists to blow themselves up to kill others that the right to be secure in our papers and person is outdated also....see where this is going?

reply to post by CosmicCitizen

While we are at it we really dont need states either. The state governments are redundant since we are really the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA (whole) and not the United States of America (plural). Let's consider taking the unenumerated rights away from the states and people, respectively, and put them with the Federal government and let the state and local governments be Federalized.

reply to post by elysiumfire


First you need to look up the definition and purpose of a comma and second the personal writings of the founders are absolutely relevant for they give us the meaning of and intent of the text they wrote into the constitution. 3rd the supreme court has ruled the 2nd amendment protects the individuals right to keep and bear arms.

The founders understood the individual right to keep and bear arms was paramount and that you could not have a citizen militia without it. And the militia was every able bodied man organized or not. They never dreamed a bunch of marxist would try and reinterpret something that seemed obvious and self explanatory to them.

If the Second Amendment goes away.....

What guarantees your rights granted by the First Amendment?

America is finished.

It rotted from the inside.

Being a non-American my view on this issue is moot. I am neither pro or anti gun. I do think that it is not logistically feasible to disarm the American public, there are so many guns in the US a person is probably safer owning and carrying one. If you take away the LAC's guns then armed criminals will have a spree, that's my view.

However another poster has brought up a point that has been on my mind of late. If it is the 'duty' of US citizens to 'dismember and overthrow' their government when it becomes tyrannical, and this seems to be the original purpose of the 2nd amendment, and clearly the US government could be classed as tyrannical, when are the citizens of the USA going to exercise their 'duty'?(I know it's a simplistic view on the matter but someone please address this question).

It's fairly safe to say that if the general populace had guns in my country there would be a smaller population, by about half, in a matter of weeks.