Dem Sen: Second Amendment Not Meant For Citizens To Take Up Arms Against Government

Godfrey Daniels! Did Senator Murphy ever have a history class? From his statements I sorely doubt it. The Second amendment was put in the Constitution BECAUSE it guaranteed the citizens the right to "to fight their government" should that government become tyranical like England did with the colonists that wrote the Constitution. Maybe we need to make a manditory school background check of anyone who runs for Government office? Make them take a History test, if they fail that then require them to take a Constitutional law class.

I think his lack of understanding regarding the Revolutionary War and the Constitution is absolutely appalling. It's a truly sad commentary that he hails from a state who's nickname is the Constitution State.

 

Ignorance is the norm in DC.

 

The idea that the Second Amendment was put in there in order to allow citizens to fight their government is insane.

Of course not.

According to the Nazi gun grabbers the 2nd Amendment exists to protect the right of duck hunters to go after their favorite winged target.

Every lib knows that.

 

Liberal doves? Perhaps...

 

If they use biodegradable plastic shot.

And don't fire at any chickenhawks like Obama or Hillary.

 

No worries, one day the country will wake up and the sort of thinking Obama and Hillary espouse will be found on the endangered list...

 

I worry that the country will not wake up.

The lib public schools are doing a very good job of brainwashing future Americans to be as stupid as they are.

 

One of the best things I ever heard was when there was an federal government investigation on guns and the shooting at the Lubys in Waco, a woman survivor was asked why she felt she needed guns, was it for self defence and her answer stuned them when she said that she and Americans needed guns to protect themselves from you, the government. The look on their faces was apsolutely priceless.

 

Perhaps you should read the Constitution:

Sounds to me like levying war is taking up arms. hmmmmmmm

 

Looks like the "esteemed Senator from Connecticut" is UTTERLY IGNORANT of the origins of our nation, as well as the Constitution.

 

Were the Founding Fathers traitors in the eyes of the British Government?

Yes.

 

The "United States" is a system of government BY AND FOR "The People". You've apparently been conditioned to believe tyranny and treason cannot be conducted by those few who've been employed to "represent" them.....

like a good, compliant lemming.

- - - Updated - - -

Methinks it's more of a conditioning, "tell the lie often enough" scenario....

 

Not a bad idea, but Obama was purportedly schooled in the Constitution and that never stopped him from violating it.

Andrew Napolitano is right - the biggest lie our government tells us is that it upholds the Constitution.

 

You realize the Founders' revolted against oppression, they won't roll in their graves if dirty liberals force freedom loving peoples to take up arms against new oppressors...

 

Only until they won...

 

Inselaffen subjects still refer to the US as "the colonies". They're still sore people had the audacity to free themselves of the oppressive crown..

 

Speaking of ignorance, were you not aware that the English bill of rights contained a right to bear arms?

So if our founders wanted something different than this, why did they include an amendment with the same exact effect?

And it is far from certain that the motivation for the 2nd amendment was to allow people to rise up against the government. Especially considering the amendment says:

 

When you are protecting yourself from the GOVERNMENT levying war against you, it's called self defense not Treason.

 

I suggest you read the intentions of the men that helped craft the United States constitution.
"The right of the people to keep and bear...arms shall not be infringed. A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country..." (James Madison, I Annals of Congress 434 [June 8, 1789])

"...to disarm the people - that was the best and most effectual way to enslave them." (George Mason, 3 Elliot, Debates at 380)

"Americans have the right and advantage of being armed - unlike the citizens of other countries whose governments are afraid to trust the people with arms." (James Madison, The Federalist Papers #46 at 243-244)

"...but if circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude, that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people, while there is a large body of citizens, little if at all inferior to them in discipline and use of arms, who stand ready to defend their rights..." (Alexander Hamilton speaking of standing armies in Federalist 29.)

"The Constitution shall never be construed....to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms" (Samuel Adams, Debates and Proceedings in the Convention of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, 86-87)

"To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of people always possess arms, and be taught alike especially when young, how to use them." (Richard Henry Lee, 1788, Initiator of the Declaration of Independence, and member of the first Senate, which passed the Bill of Rights, Walter Bennett, ed., Letters from the Federal Farmer to the Republican, at 21,22,124 (Univ. of Alabama Press,1975

 

They were still traitors in King George's eyes.

But sure, winning the revolution changes everything.

A fact that seems to keep the lib gun grabbers and the nanny state awake at night.

 

The Second Amendment (Amendment II) to the United States Constitution is the part of the United States Bill of Rights that protects the right to keep and bear arms. It was adopted on December 15, 1791, along with the rest of the Bill of Rights.

The right to bear arms predates the Bill of Rights; the Second Amendment was based partially on the right to bear arms in English common-law, and was influenced by the English Bill of Rights of 1689. This right was described by Blackstone as an auxiliary right, supporting the natural rights of self-defense, resistance to oppression, and the civic duty to act in concert in defense of the state. Academic inquiry into the purpose,[1][2] scope,[3] and effect[4] of the amendment has been controversial[5][6][7] and subject to numerous interpretations.[8]

In United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 (1875), the Supreme Court ruled that "[t]he right to bear arms is not granted by the Constitution; neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The Second Amendment means no more than that it shall not be infringed by Congress, and has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the National Government."

In United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939), the Supreme Court ruled that the amendment "[protects arms that had a] reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia". This ruling has been widely described as ambiguous, and ignited a debate on whether the amendment protected an individual right, or a collective militia right.

In District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (200, the Supreme Court ruled that the Second Amendment "codified a pre-existing right" and that it "protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home"[9][10] but also stated that "the right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose". They also clarified that many longstanding prohibitions and restrictions on firearms possession listed by the Court are consistent with the Second Amendment.[11]

In McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U.S. 3025 (2010), the Supreme Court ruled that the Second Amendment limits state and local governments to the same extent that it limits the federal government.[12]


and from the Federalist papers:

"The strongest reason for people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government." -- (Thomas Jefferson)

it doesn't get any clearer than that.

 

yes they were and half the people living here at the time agreed.

- - - Updated - - -

I don't disagree, but the Constitution is pretty clear about taking up arms against the government or is that something you can parse.

 

So being a traitor to the Crown (in London or Washington DC) has a proud and honorable tradition in America.

 

that is true but that is not what is being discussed. The 2nd amendment is not about being able to attack a government you disagree with. That is what the Senator was talking about.

- - - Updated - - -

and it violates the Constitution....

 

I don't think King George approved of the idea either.