The purpose of the 2nd Amendment

[Lady Di]

“Tench Coxe was a newspaper editor and a friend of James Madison (who wrote the Second Amendment). Coxe wrote an explanation of the Bill of Rights that was widely reprinted all over the country, so that people could see and understand what was being proposed. Coxe clearly stated that the purpose of the Second Amendment was to ensure that the people would always be armed, in case they should need to rise against a tyrannical government.”


Richard Poe, in an interview by G. Gordon Liddy

[VegasGeorge]

I think we all know that's true. But, it also sounds pretty far fetched these days. If you start talking to your friends about keeping a gun just in case you need to "rise up against a tyrannical government," they're going to consign you to the loony bin where they keep radical right wing militias, and space alien abductees in their minds. I think this is an argument best kept for academic treatises and historical accounts. Best to stick to self defense, home protection, and deterrence of crime when talking up gun ownership.

[Lady Di]

Maybe we run in different circles, but I hear this kind of talk all the time from my libertarian-leaning friends. The founding fathers were viewed upon as a fringe element at one time too. They revolted over a small tea tax, and I'm sure they're spinning in their graves for what we've allowed to happen to the Republic. I'll always advocate peaceful means of advancing a cause, but I'll never forget history because I don't want it repeated in my lifetime.

[Bill of Rights]

"Si vis pacem, para bellum.", Lady Di

:wink:

Cogito, ergo porto.

Blessings,
M

[Lady Di]

"Si vis pacem, para bellum.", Lady Di

:wink:

M

That's a great motto to live by, St. Michael. And I'm sure as a former Cub Scout you learned all about preparedness. :wink:

[VegasGeorge]

Of course the parity of fire power between the government and the civilian population has changed completely since revolutionary days. Time was when a well armed civilian was more or less equal to a well armed soldier. Today that idea is laughable. I'm talking about a legally armed civilian.

So, the argument that the 2nd Amendment is important because the population may need to "rise up against a tyrannical government" is simply irrelevant today, except in a historical or philosophical sense. An armed revolution is still possible, but it would have to include the arms of National Guard and defected regular military units. Otherwise, it would be over before it even started.

[Bill of Rights]

Did you ever see "The Running Man", George?

Near the end, the big bodyguard type who'd earlier been figuratively spat upon by Killian (Richard Dawson) simply refused to protect him from the fate he'd brought upon himself.

I don't have any illusions of the military/police/etc. acting in this manner cohesively, but I think that if ordered to essentially stomp the American people, to include their own families and friends, no, I don't think they'd cohesively act to protect those giving the orders, either. Let's call it "non-violent neutrality". Given that, National Guard weapons and truly defected (i.e. actively fighting against the politicians) units would not be completely necessary, I don't think. If it was, the politicians would not need bodyguards whenever they went somewhere.

Just my thoughts.

Blessings,
M

(Disclaimer: It is not my intent to foment revolution. This is an academic discussion.)

[Michael09]

Significantly, the 2nd Amendment refers explicitly to "the right of the people," not the rights of states or the militia. And the Bill of Rights is the section of our Constitution that deals exclusively with individual liberties.

[Bill of Rights]

Significantly, the 2nd Amendment refers explicitly to "the right of the people," not the rights of states or the militia. And the Bill of Rights is the section of our Constitution that deals exclusively with individual liberties.

Let us hope that SCOTUS thinks as you do if/when they review the Heller case and the Parker case.

Blessings,
M