If you think the second was written to protect us from our own gov, well youre wrong. It was written so that if the states were invaded (at the time
by the French, Spanish, Brittish, Natives) the people could defend themselves and support the U.S. gov in the form of militias.
What do you think?
I think you need to re study the Declaration of Independence and US Constitution because you have no clue what your talking about.
First gun owners are Not " required" to do anything of the sort. Your suggestion seems to imply that it is our duty to allow the powers that be to
monitor our gun usage as well as have our names and addresses on file - What - no Privacy? Your advocating Big Brother.
Secondly.. the Declaration of Independence was the forerunner of the Constitution in that it laid down the mood and feelings of the people toward
abuses by Government and any tyranny that came from that government.
That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to
institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect
their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and
accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the
forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce
them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.
Declaration of Independence
These attitudes did not change when the Constitution was drafted but rather incorporated into the Constitution so such tyranny could not happen again.
We The People would be able to maintain control over such a government. ( in theory anyway - perhaps in practice for such a small group of early
Americans - they did not imagine a world 200 years later when the government and corporate interest were so corrupt that it becomes almost impossible
They understood a concept used by other Governments at the time called the Right of Revolution.
American Revolution: The right to revolution
would play a large part in the writings of the American revolutionaries. The political tract Common Sense used the concept as an argument for
rejection of the British Monarchy and separation from the Empire, as opposed to merely self-government within it. It was also cited in the Declaration
of Independence of the United States, when a group of representatives from the various states signed a declaration of independence citing charges
against King George III. As the American Declaration of Independence in 1776 expressed it, natural law taught that the people were “endowed by their
Creator with certain unalienable Rights” and could alter or abolish government “destructive” of those rights.
It can be shown as well that these ideas were added to individual States Constitutions - After the Revolutionary war mind you - This dealt with not
the overthrow of the Monarchy because we were already Free from the Monarchy - it applied to We The People vs The American Government if in fact that
government should become tyrannical.
Certain scholars, such as legal historian Christian Fritz, have written that with the end of the Revolution, Americans did not renounce the
right of revolution. In fact they codified it in their new constitutions. For instance, constitutions considered to be "conservative," such as
those of post-revolutionary Massachusetts in 1780, preserved the people's right "to reform, alter, or totally change" government not only for their
protection or safety but also whenever their "prosperity and happiness reduire[d] it." This expression was not unusual in the early American
constitutions. Connecticut's 1818 constitution articulated the people's right "at all times" to alter government "in such a manner as they may think
Fritz, in American Sovereigns: The People and America's Constitutional Tradition Before the Civil War, describes a duality in American views on
preconditions to the right of revolution: "Some of the first state constitutions included 'alter or abolish' provisions that mirrored the traditional
right of revolution" in that they required dire preconditions to its exercise. Maryland's 1776 constitution and New Hampshire's 1784 constitutions
required the perversion of the ends of government and the endangering of public liberty and that all other means of redress were to no avail. But
in contrast, other states dispensed with the onerous preconditions on the exercise of the right. In the 1776 Virginia constitution the right would
arise simply if government was "inadequate" and Pennsylvania's 1776 constitution required only that the people considered a change to be "most
conducive" to the public welfare.
( under Preconditions)
Also keep in mind the US Constitution was also written After we declared independence by the Monarchy and the Revolutionary war was Over. There was no
longer any reason to think we would need to go to war with England again - the Constitution dealt with We the People vs Our Government on our own soil
- just as the States Constitutions did.
Now the Government as such did not want Anarchy to arise so they tried to make ways in which We The People could reform government without bloodshed
or civil wars. This is Only applicable in peace time when everyone is willing to work together. They still understood when push came to shove it is We
The People that should have the last say over if our government remains intact in it's present state - or not and that armed revolution was a viable
option if needed.
The purpose to keep and bear arms is for the security of a Free State - even against our own government.
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.
(As passed by the Congress
and preserved in the National Archives)
Later the Supreme Court ruled that you do not have to belong to a militia to have this right. See District of Columbia v. Heller (2008), United States
v. Miller - en.wikipedia.org...
- down the page listed under United States Courts of
Appeals decisions before and after Heller
edit on 12-9-2013 by JohnPhoenix because: sp