When is it right to avail oneself of the 2nd amendment?

[^_^ 5,021]

If we really want to be able to draw up an effective militia, it seems we ought to at least have rocket propelled grenades, mortars, heavy machine guns, artillery, tanks, maybe a few fighter jets with heat seeking missiles and 'smart' bombs, maybe even a few nukes! I mean, if you are really serious about maintaining this rationale for private ownership of guns!

I do think we should dissolve our standing military and give away all its assets to American citizens. That would, of course, include nukes etc.

[Peikko 1,575]

The OP was asking what the right actually means in real terms. You seem to be ignoring that to suggest that owning a gun is merely an end unto itself. Somehow that seems pretty unsatisfactory.

Exactly. I hear so often that the second amendment somehow guarantees freedom from tyranny, and yet there are no concrete examples of how exactly it achieves that, and what the line in the sand is as to when acceptable government turns into tyranny. I do see a lot of bullshit being spouted concerning the notion that the right to own a gun in and of itself somehow scares the ###### out of 'government' (presumably just fed gov, that being the 'evil' kind of gov) and that in and of itself serves the purpose of keeping America free. However, there is no clear explanation of how that works, just that it does, and that somehow American citizens have some special kind of freedom that citizens of other countries lack but again with no clear explanation of what the difference is except that people like Gary can walk around all day carrying a concealed gun about their person should they so desire. That is an incredibly bizarre version of freedom if you ask me.

[slim 1,525]

What line would you draw in the sand?

This is a question I've thought long and hard about.

I believe to truly find that line it's important to look at what caused the framers of that Amendment to avail themselves of it. Keep in mind, when they did so they weren't protected by the Amendment - it hadn't been created yet. However, they'd long been afforded the protection, even encouragement, of English common law to possess private arms.

Many in the new world were living on "the frontier" and the Militia, as it was understood in those days, was any able-bodied man aged 16 to 60 years. Often times this militia was called upon by the king to war with the French or Indians and to augment or supplement the active-duty army. It was also recognized that this group of armed men was responsible for the protection of their own community. They typically had a sheriff or county magistrate but police forces were unheard of.

Armed citizens of a community kept the peace - all by themselves.

So, what caused the armed citizenry to rise up against their king? To take up arms against their own government? To fire on their own standing army?

Gun control.

Sure, there was taxation without representation. There were forced conscriptions, political trials abroad, quartering of troops and all sorts of various grievances the common folks had with the king - and all of that was handled with, for the most part, peaceful petition for redress - but when it came right down to it, the first shots of the war were fired when the king's troops came to disarm the public.

I wholeheartedly believe that's where the line in the sand will be once more. As Gary's pointed out numerous times over, responsible citizens who are privately armed very seldom have problems with peace. It's precisely when government gets too involved in private lives (as in urban areas nationwide) when you see problems with peace being disturbed.

The only time-honored remedy for those situations is when common, decent folks - who aren't connected with the government - once again take peace into their own hands. If the government means to take away the common man's ability to defend his own peace, he will retaliate.

This isn't like other "first world" countries where folks voluntarily line up and turn in their weapons. It will be much the opposite. Perhaps the biggest spike in violent crime we've ever had, as a nation, was when the government took too much of an involvement in private lives by banning alcohol. It just didn't work. Americans continued to honor their traditions and participate in activities that made sense to them whether they were legal or not.

The same will happen with firearms. Only this time it won't be "foreign" troops coming to disarm the populace, it'll be "local" troops who live - along with their families - in the communities they're ordered to disarm. Quite a tough decision for them to make.

- And one the government is keenly aware of. As you probably noticed, during the gun confiscations in the aftermath of hurricane Katrina, many of the troops were brought in from "foreign" places. Federal agents from alphabet agencies across the nation were brought in along with National Guard from places as far away as California. Why didn't the locals handle it? Other than being undermanned and outgunned, it is a HUGE undertaking to disarm an American city, especially when nobody is shooting back at you.

Take into account the events of April 19th, 1775. There were approximately 3,000 troops - Army regulars and Marines - in all of Boston and the surrounding area, 2,000 of which were sent out into the countryside to disarm the populace. By the end of the day, over 14,000 armed colonials sent the troops reeling back to Boston and placed the city under seige.

If the government is going to disarm us today.... who will they send?

The answer is, they can't send anyone at all. It's too much of an undertaking and it's way too dangerous. So, in the mean time they send people like Sarah Brady and Michael Bloomberg to erode our rights a little at a time. No doubt the recent crime in AZ. will once again open the doors for weak-minded sheeple to ask for their rights to be stripped away in the name of public safety.

But today, much like back in those days, those of us who understand liberty and are willing to do what it takes to protect it - will be ready to defend it by any means necessary.

Personally, it is my belief that if one has the ability to participate in free and fair elections (subject to the appropriate age limitations) , then one has no right whatsoever to overturn the outcome just because person the elected does not conform with you personal vision of what government should mean.

I whole-heartedly agree with you.

As long as we have a non-violent means to petition for redress we should do so. I've been in the mud and it's no fun. I've tirelessly recounted the tales of those who endured - and perished - during our revolution and I can honestly say they wouldn't have fought a battle if they would've had the opportunities to participate in a system such as the one we have in place today.

What they would've done is gotten very active in their community and the political process. They wouldn't have sat there day in and day out watching American Idol and Glee and shows about pseudo-celebrities that made sex tapes. They would've taken ownership and done something about it. Because, in essence, that's what they did. They exhausted all avenues before fighting.

We haven't even agreed what we're arguing about.

Some of the posters on VJ seem to feel differently. Feel free to draw your own lines.

I believe you're trying to connect two unrelated things here.

You're trying to say our 2nd Amendment, which ALSO protects our right to possess private arms, is being used to justify killing a congresswoman. NOBODY here said that. In fact, I think if you can read through this stuff without being all emotional you'll see that nowhere in these threads did anyone say anybody had the right to kill elected officials at all.

What I did see (and this goes back to your posted topic) was someone saying if an idiot was to use the 2A as justification to overthrow the government then they went about it all wrong.

Obviously that kid in AZ understands the 2nd Amendment about as well as you do. In other words, not at all.

What the founders spelled out in very plain language was our right to private arms will always be there no matter what. See, back in their day people who were armed were not a threat because other people who were armed - sensible, common folk that were their friends, family and neighbors - took care of things like, "well maybe he should've been given a mental evaluation after the campus police came to his house."

We don't do that anymore. Now, it's the government's job.

Hmmmm. Wonder where all these problems came from.

[Ban Hammer 13,334]

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.

Is the first comma correct? Because I don't understand how this is a sentence with it included. I also don't understand how this grants the right of people who are not part of a militia to keep and bear arms.

pause and ask yourself: who was the militia back then? every able bodied male over a certain age.

well regulated - some sources indicate it means equipped to a minimum standard.

[Ban Hammer 13,334]

If we really want to be able to draw up an effective militia, it seems we ought to at least have rocket propelled grenades, mortars, heavy machine guns, artillery, tanks, maybe a few fighter jets with heat seeking missiles and 'smart' bombs, maybe even a few nukes! I mean, if you are really serious about maintaining this rationale for private ownership of guns! And before any of you show up at my door, no, I am not advocating trying to take your guns away from you! But I think the discussion is usually less than honest on both sides of the debate about what we want and why. For me, I would just like to see a way to make our society a bit safer and more peaceful. But I also value our liberties and so the whole issue is complicated.

infantry is the most important thing to have in a war. if you don't have boots on the ground, you don't own it.

[james&olya 1,121]

The same will happen with firearms. Only this time it won't be "foreign" troops coming to disarm the populace, it'll be "local" troops who live - along with their families - in the communities they're ordered to disarm. Quite a tough decision for them to make.

Only one of many reasons why this is very unlikely to ever happen.

infantry is the most important thing to have in a war. if you don't have boots on the ground, you don't own it.

Oh,sorry, I forgot to mention boots!

[Peikko 1,575]

This is a question I've thought long and hard about.

I believe to truly find that line it's important to look at what caused the framers of that Amendment to avail themselves of it. Keep in mind, when they did so they weren't protected by the Amendment - it hadn't been created yet. However, they'd long been afforded the protection, even encouragement, of English common law to possess private arms.

Many in the new world were living on "the frontier" and the Militia, as it was understood in those days, was any able-bodied man aged 16 to 60 years. Often times this militia was called upon by the king to war with the French or Indians and to augment or supplement the active-duty army. It was also recognized that this group of armed men was responsible for the protection of their own community. They typically had a sheriff or county magistrate but police forces were unheard of.

Armed citizens of a community kept the peace - all by themselves.

So, what caused the armed citizenry to rise up against their king? To take up arms against their own government? To fire on their own standing army?

Gun control.

Sure, there was taxation without representation. There were forced conscriptions, political trials abroad, quartering of troops and all sorts of various grievances the common folks had with the king - and all of that was handled with, for the most part, peaceful petition for redress - but when it came right down to it, the first shots of the war were fired when the king's troops came to disarm the public.

I wholeheartedly believe that's where the line in the sand will be once more. As Gary's pointed out numerous times over, responsible citizens who are privately armed very seldom have problems with peace. It's precisely when government gets too involved in private lives (as in urban areas nationwide) when you see problems with peace being disturbed.

The only time-honored remedy for those situations is when common, decent folks - who aren't connected with the government - once again take peace into their own hands. If the government means to take away the common man's ability to defend his own peace, he will retaliate.

This isn't like other "first world" countries where folks voluntarily line up and turn in their weapons. It will be much the opposite. Perhaps the biggest spike in violent crime we've ever had, as a nation, was when the government took too much of an involvement in private lives by banning alcohol. It just didn't work. Americans continued to honor their traditions and participate in activities that made sense to them whether they were legal or not.

The same will happen with firearms. Only this time it won't be "foreign" troops coming to disarm the populace, it'll be "local" troops who live - along with their families - in the communities they're ordered to disarm. Quite a tough decision for them to make.

- And one the government is keenly aware of. As you probably noticed, during the gun confiscations in the aftermath of hurricane Katrina, many of the troops were brought in from "foreign" places. Federal agents from alphabet agencies across the nation were brought in along with National Guard from places as far away as California. Why didn't the locals handle it? Other than being undermanned and outgunned, it is a HUGE undertaking to disarm an American city, especially when nobody is shooting back at you.

Take into account the events of April 19th, 1775. There were approximately 3,000 troops - Army regulars and Marines - in all of Boston and the surrounding area, 2,000 of which were sent out into the countryside to disarm the populace. By the end of the day, over 14,000 armed colonials sent the troops reeling back to Boston and placed the city under seige.

If the government is going to disarm us today.... who will they send?

The answer is, they can't send anyone at all. It's too much of an undertaking and it's way too dangerous. So, in the mean time they send people like Sarah Brady and Michael Bloomberg to erode our rights a little at a time. No doubt the recent crime in AZ. will once again open the doors for weak-minded sheeple to ask for their rights to be stripped away in the name of public safety.

But today, much like back in those days, those of us who understand liberty and are willing to do what it takes to protect it - will be ready to defend it by any means necessary.

I whole-heartedly agree with you.

As long as we have a non-violent means to petition for redress we should do so. I've been in the mud and it's no fun. I've tirelessly recounted the tales of those who endured - and perished - during our revolution and I can honestly say they wouldn't have fought a battle if they would've had the opportunities to participate in a system such as the one we have in place today.

What they would've done is gotten very active in their community and the political process. They wouldn't have sat there day in and day out watching American Idol and Glee and shows about pseudo-celebrities that made sex tapes. They would've taken ownership and done something about it. Because, in essence, that's what they did. They exhausted all avenues before fighting.

We haven't even agreed what we're arguing about.

I believe you're trying to connect two unrelated things here.

You're trying to say our 2nd Amendment, which ALSO protects our right to possess private arms, is being used to justify killing a congresswoman. NOBODY here said that. In fact, I think if you can read through this stuff without being all emotional you'll see that nowhere in these threads did anyone say anybody had the right to kill elected officials at all.

What I did see (and this goes back to your posted topic) was someone saying if an idiot was to use the 2A as justification to overthrow the government then they went about it all wrong.

Obviously that kid in AZ understands the 2nd Amendment about as well as you do. In other words, not at all.

What the founders spelled out in very plain language was our right to private arms will always be there no matter what. See, back in their day people who were armed were not a threat because other people who were armed - sensible, common folk that were their friends, family and neighbors - took care of things like, "well maybe he should've been given a mental evaluation after the campus police came to his house."

We don't do that anymore. Now, it's the government's job.

Hmmmm. Wonder where all these problems came from.

So once again you are suggesting that it's the ability to own a gun is what's important, that that in and of itself guarantees your freedom to be an American You do realize that's nonsensical?

Btw, who is suggesting citizens be 'disarmed'? Certainly there is no suggestion from me that the government should go around disarming people willy nilly.

[Peikko 1,575]

Finally, I didn't say anyone had used it to justify killing a congresswoman, although there are posters on VJ who have some kind of airy fairy idea that at some point doing such things would be justifiable although yet again these posters have failed to mention when that would be acceptable and appropriate.

[james&olya 1,121]

Finally, I didn't say anyone had used it to justify killing a congresswoman, although there are posters on VJ who have some kind of airy fairy idea that at some point doing such things would be justifiable although yet again these posters have failed to mention when that would be acceptable and appropriate.

There are posters here with significant psycho-pathology!

[Peikko 1,575]

Well, certainly the only thing I have got from the 'I want to be able to carry a concealed gun around with me everywhere' lot is that the only time they would resort to killing people is if someone tried to take their guns away. That seems really bizarre to me.

[slim 1,525]

So once again you are suggesting that it's the ability to own a gun is what's important, that that in and of itself guarantees your freedom to be an American You do realize that's nonsensical?

Not at all. What I'm suggesting is a government that's threatened by an armed citizenry and takes away their rights to private ownership is in control of it's population. That's not supposed to happen here. I know that's the way it works in many other "first world" countries, but here, it's truly supposed to be a government "of the people."

Btw, who is suggesting citizens be 'disarmed'? Certainly there is no suggestion from me that the government should go around disarming people willy nilly.

I'm not saying you suggested it; that's what happened last time. Last time the 2nd Amendment was availed it was because of confiscation.

Finally, I didn't say anyone had used it to justify killing a congresswoman, although there are posters on VJ who have some kind of airy fairy idea that at some point doing such things would be justifiable although yet again these posters have failed to mention when that would be acceptable and appropriate.

That's probably because the 2nd Amendment doesn't spell out when it would be appropriate. It reserves our right to do so by giving us the means while not telling us how, where or when.

If you look back to the colonists, they had a very tough choice of when and where themselves. For the first few years of the war they still weren't sure it was time. The "official" start came more than a year after the first shots were fired.

Well, certainly the only thing I have got from the 'I want to be able to carry a concealed gun around with me everywhere' lot is that the only time they would resort to killing people is if someone tried to take their guns away. That seems really bizarre to me.

That's probably because you don't ensure your own freedom. If you were to take some responsibility and do it yourself - instead of paying someone else to do it - then you'd feel differently.

Edited January 11, 2011 by slim

[Peikko 1,575]

Not at all. What I'm suggesting is a government that's threatened by an armed citizenry is in control of it's population. That's not supposed to happen here. I know that's the way it works in many other "first world" countries, but here, it's truly supposed to be a government "of the people."

I'm not saying you suggested it; that's what happened last time. Last time the 2nd Amendment was availed it was because of confiscation.

That's probably because the 2nd Amendment doesn't spell out when it would be appropriate. It reserves our right to do so by giving us the means while not telling us how, where or when.

If you look back to the colonists, they had a very tough choice of when and where themselves. For the first few years of the war they still weren't sure it was time. The "official" start came more than a year after the first shots were fired.

That's probably because you don't ensure your own freedom. If you were to take some responsibility and do it yourself - instead of paying someone else to do it - then you'd feel differently.

Which is all nice rhetoric but please, once again, what does it MEAN? What freedoms do you have as an American citizen that I don't have as a UK citizen that are not related to gun ownership? Btw, UK citizens can legally own guns, and even use them so careful now

[Ban Hammer 13,334]

Which is all nice rhetoric but please, once again, what does it MEAN? What freedoms do you have as an American citizen that I don't have as a UK citizen that are not related to gun ownership? Btw, UK citizens can legally own guns, and even use them so careful now

- can you feed your own family with your firearm?

- can you legally defend your home and family with your firearm?

- can you answer a call to defend your country against foreign invaders if necessary?

- can you go target shooting if you desire?

- how many rounds is a uk cit allowed to possess without a special permit?s

[slim 1,525]

Which is all nice rhetoric but please, once again, what does it MEAN? What freedoms do you have as an American citizen that I don't have as a UK citizen that are not related to gun ownership? Btw, UK citizens can legally own guns, and even use them so careful now

What does the 2A mean? Is that what you're asking?

- I think it's pretty straight forward. It means private ownership of guns is guaranteed. What I think a lot of Americans fail to realize is it actually means you SHOULD own guns.

What freedoms do I have as an American that you don't have as a UK citizen that are not related to gun ownership?

- Not related to gun ownership, I don't know. I honestly don't know your laws that well to sit here and tell you what rights I have that you don't other than what's related to guns. Perhaps you can enlighten me.

When you say UK citizens can own "guns" don't you mean "sporting pieces?"

[Pinocchio Liberal 268]

- can you feed your own family with your firearm?

- can you legally defend your home and family with your firearm?

- can you answer a call to defend your country against foreign invaders if necessary?

- can you go target shooting if you desire?

- how many rounds is a uk cit allowed to possess without a special permit?s

Why do you bother?