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

The Senator was talking about a government that is not liked by people so they want to over-throw it using what has been euphemistically called 2nd amendment solutions. That is not what the 2nd amendment is about nor is it legal, moral or patriotic. It would be treason. You can certainly fight back against a corrupt government who is violating the Constitution but here is the thing, none of the laws on guns proposed by the Congress or the President are unconstitutional. That is a fact. Read Scalia in the last two major gun rights cases. If you fight federal authorities who are prosecuting people for violation of federal laws you are committing treason and I will fight you. If the government tries to suspend the Constitution (and despite right wing hyperbole that is not happening) then I would help you find the right ammo to fight back. That is the difference and of course the Senator was 100% correct.

The NRA sees government as Jack-booted thugs. Funny I can disagree with members of the government and still love the country and the Constitution. Why can't the NRA?

 

Not a single one of those cases suggests that the right to bear arms was motivated by the idea that people should be able to rise against their government. You probably just copied and pasted the first page of the wiki article on the second amendment. Laughable.

The only thing that comes close to supporting your statement is that quote from Jefferson - one of many in favor of a bill of rights. But I guess since that supports your position, you'll assume that he spoke for all of them. Despite the fact that the exact wording of the amendment seems to indicate that its purpose was to maintain a well regulated militia.

 

and that is irrelevant to this conversation.

 

If the 2nd Amendment was put in the Constitution to allow citizens to raise arms against the government, then why isn't there a protected right to armed rebellion? Why did the Founders put down an armed rebellion only years after the Constitution was signed? Why is there only 2 legal ways to change the Constitution (amung them armed rebellion is nowhere to be found)?

 

Liberal democrats, or whatever they may be, do not like anything about the Second Amendment. They cannot tolerate a single word contained in it.

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.

"Well regulated" has never had anything to do with regulating guns or having any manner of gun control laws.

"Milita"--a hated institution to liberals. The National Guard has supposedly replaced it. But the Guard was not created until years after the Constitution.

"necesasary for the security of a free state"---liberals find the idea of armed citizens protecting the state inwardly against government tyranny--- incomprehensible.

"the right of the people"---that's a basic right, not a priveldge, like a driver's licence.

"to keep and bear arms"----this can't possibly mean modern firearms, the liberals claim. The Milita Act of 1792 outlines what the Founders meant by arms, and this included rifles, pistols and even cannons---if the people so wished it.

"shall not be infringed."---liberals infringe on this right anyway they can. Neo-communist judges have done this since 1934, but there is no Constitutional basis for any gun control law for the common citizen.

 

Who is levying war? where was that even mentioned. The 2nd amendment is supposed to allow people to defend themselves against a government that becomes tyrannical.

 

This has always bothered me with an argument like this. No one ever wants to talk about what the tipping point is. When has the government become tyrannical or suppressive. In Germany at the closing days of WW2 there were people there who thought the Nationalist Socialist government was good and honest. At the opposite side of the coin there are still those who think Stalin was all that and a slice of toast.

The constitution never speaks to internal armed rebellion, it gives us no formula for weighing up a government, and deciding now is the time. Yet in the last 40 years or so there has been a huge movement claiming thats exactly what the 2nd Amendment does..........sad really

 

I believe you are talking about the Whiskey Rebellion. The people were protesting unfair taxation---not trying to overthrown the Federal government. The rebels walked away before any fighting took place.

Remember, the Founders had an armed rebellion against the British Crown, so they did support the concept of American citizens overthrowing a corrupt federal government. This is allowed in the 2nd Amendment.

 

then your understanding of the Amendment is poor at best. See again: 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

This is just more BS twisting and turning to avoid the obvious and clear meaning of the Amendment.

laughable? heh, yeah, go ahead and laugh, because you have nothing when faced with the facts.

Yes, it's a copy and past, sorry, i didn't include the link originally, so here it is:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

As for the wording and the meaning, in addition to the SCOTUS ruling that it indeed means the individual, there exists an English professor's analysis of the wording:

The Unabridged Second Amendment
by J. Neil Schulman

If you wanted to know all about the Big Bang, you'd ring up Carl Sagan, right? And if you wanted to know about desert warfare, the man to call would be Norman Schwarzkopf, no question about it. But who would you call if you wanted the top expert on American usage, to tell you the meaning of the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution?

That was the question I asked A.C. Brocki, editorial coordinator of the Los Angeles Unified School District and formerly senior editor at Houghton Mifflin Publishers — who himself had been recommended to me as the foremost expert on English usage in the Los Angeles school system. Mr. Brocki told me to get in touch with Roy Copperud, a retired professor of journalism at the University of Southern California and the author of American Usage and Style: The Consensus.

A little research lent support to Brocki's opinion of Professor Copperud's expertise.

Roy Copperud was a newspaper writer on major dailies for over three decades before embarking on a a distinguished 17-year career teaching journalism at USC. Since 1952, Copperud has been writing a column dealing with the professional aspects of journalism for Editor and Publisher, a weekly magazine focusing on the journalism field.

He's on the usage panel of the American Heritage Dictionary, and Merriam Webster's Usage Dictionary frequently cites him as an expert. Copperud's fifth book on usage, American Usage and Style: The Consensus, has been in continuous print from Van Nostrand Reinhold since 1981, and is the winner of the Association of American Publisher's Humanities Award.

That sounds like an expert to me.

After a brief telephone call to Professor Copperud in which I introduced myself but did not give him any indication of why I was interested, I sent the following letter:

"I am writing you to ask you for your professional opinion as an expert in English usage, to analyze the text of the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution, and extract the intent from the text.

"The text of the Second Amendment is, 'A well-regulated Militia, being necessary for the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.'

"The debate over this amendment has been whether the first part of the sentence, 'A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State', is a restrictive clause or a subordinate clause, with respect to the independent clause containing the subject of the sentence, 'the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.'

"I would request that your analysis of this sentence not take into consideration issues of political impact or public policy, but be restricted entirely to a linguistic analysis of its meaning and intent. Further, since your professional analysis will likely become part of litigation regarding the consequences of the Second Amendment, I ask that whatever analysis you make be a professional opinion that you would be willing to stand behind with your reputation, and even be willing to testify under oath to support, if necessary."

My letter framed several questions about the test of the Second Amendment, then concluded:

"I realize that I am asking you to take on a major responsibility and task with this letter. I am doing so because, as a citizen, I believe it is vitally important to extract the actual meaning of the Second Amendment. While I ask that your analysis not be affected by the political importance of its results, I ask that you do this because of that importance."

After several more letters and phone calls, in which we discussed terms for his doing such an analysis, but in which we never discussed either of our opinions regarding the Second Amendment, gun control, or any other political subject, Professor Copperud sent me the follow analysis (into which I have inserted my questions for the sake of clarity):

[Copperud:] "The words 'A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state,' contrary to the interpretation cited in your letter of July 26, 1991, constitutes a present participle, rather than a clause. It is used as an adjective, modifying 'militia,' which is followed by the main clause of the sentence (subject 'the right', verb 'shall'). The to keep and bear arms is asserted as an essential for maintaining a militia.

"In reply to your numbered questions:

[Schulman:] "(1) Can the sentence be interpreted to grant the right to keep and bear arms solely to 'a well-regulated militia'?"

[Copperud:] "(1) The sentence does not restrict the right to keep and bear arms, nor does it state or imply possession of the right elsewhere or by others than the people; it simply makes a positive statement with respect to a right of the people."

[Schulman:] "(2) Is 'the right of the people to keep and bear arms' granted by the words of the Second Amendment, or does the Second Amendment assume a preexisting right of the people to keep and bear arms, and merely state that such right 'shall not be infringed'?"

[Copperud:] "(2) The right is not granted by the amendment; its existence is assumed. The thrust of the sentence is that the right shall be preserved inviolate for the sake of ensuring a militia."

[Schulman:] "(3) Is the right of the people to keep and bear arms conditioned upon whether or not a well regulated militia, is, in fact necessary to the security of a free State, and if that condition is not existing, is the statement 'the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed' null and void?"

[Copperud:] "(3) No such condition is expressed or implied. The right to keep and bear arms is not said by the amendment to depend on the existence of a militia. No condition is stated or implied as to the relation of the right to keep and bear arms and to the necessity of a well-regulated militia as a requisite to the security of a free state. The right to keep and bear arms is deemed unconditional by the entire sentence."

[Schulman:] "(4) Does the clause 'A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,' grant a right to the government to place conditions on the 'right of the people to keep and bear arms,' or is such right deemed unconditional by the meaning of the entire sentence?"

[Copperud:] "(4) The right is assumed to exist and to be unconditional, as previously stated. It is invoked here specifically for the sake of the militia."

[Schulman:] "(5) Which of the following does the phrase 'well-regulated militia' mean: 'well-equipped', 'well-organized,' 'well-drilled,' 'well-educated,' or 'subject to regulations of a superior authority'?"

[Copperud:] "(5) The phrase means 'subject to regulations of a superior authority;' this accords with the desire of the writers for civilian control over the military."

[Schulman:] "(6) (If at all possible, I would ask you to take account the changed meanings of words, or usage, since that sentence was written 200 years ago, but not take into account historical interpretations of the intents of the authors, unless those issues can be clearly separated."

[Copperud:] "To the best of my knowledge, there has been no change in the meaning of words or in usage that would affect the meaning of the amendment. If it were written today, it might be put: "Since a well-regulated militia is necessary tot he security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be abridged.'

[Schulman:] "As a 'scientific control' on this analysis, I would also appreciate it if you could compare your analysis of the text of the Second Amendment to the following sentence,

"A well-schooled electorate, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and read Books, shall not be infringed.'

"My questions for the usage analysis of this sentence would be,

"(1) Is the grammatical structure and usage of this sentence and the way the words modify each other, identical to the Second Amendment's sentence?; and

"(2) Could this sentence be interpreted to restrict 'the right of the people to keep and read Books' only to 'a well-educated electorate' — for example, registered voters with a high-school diploma?"

[Copperud:] "(1) Your 'scientific control' sentence precisely parallels the amendment in grammatical structure.

"(2) There is nothing in your sentence that either indicates or implies the possibility of a restricted interpretation."

Professor Copperud had only one additional comment, which he placed in his cover letter: "With well-known human curiosity, I made some speculative efforts to decide how the material might be used, but was unable to reach any conclusion."

So now we have been told by one of the top experts on American usage what many knew all along: the Constitution of the United States unconditionally protects the people's right to keep and bear arms, forbidding all governments formed under the Constitution from abridging that right.

So what have we here? Several factual posts from a source other than your imagination of and by people wholly and immensely more qualified on the subject.

yeah, damn those facts...

 

I think the 2nd amendment is mainly to help the establishment of a well regulated militia to defend the nation probably from foreign powers

 

Yes if they fire on you. But you can't take up arms against a government you don't like.

 

So in your mind, the government can become as tyrannical as it wants and we can't overthrow it until they fire first?

Good lord. What are the kids being taught in school these days.....

 

The British put an arms embargo on the colonies in 1774, right before the revolution.

The crown tried to choke the supply of guns, just like the Obama crown is.


Go back to school, and take down your picture of al swearingen

 

Let's get this straight. You're trying to prove that the purpose of the Second Amendment is to give people the right to rise up against the government. Yes? So you prove this by providing a Supreme Court position that argues that the right to bear arms is unconnected with the service of the militia. Therefore, you conclude that the purpose of the Second Amendment is to give people the right to rise up against the government.

Mr. Spock would (*)(*)(*)(*) himself laughing trying to make sense of your garbled post.

 

"To insure a FREE state."


Tell me liberals, just how do citizens with guns insure a FREE state?

 

I've never felt that the intent of the 2nd Amendment was to allow an individual to take up arms against the government anytime they choose, but to allow citizens the right to defend themselve against the government should that government become tyranical against the rights of the people.

For that reason, I believe this Senator is full of (*)(*)(*)(*).

 

That sounds exactly right.

It's not for crazies, it's for communities

 

Are you not able to comprehend simple English?

I asked why the founding fathers would bother with a clause protecting the right to bear arms when such a clause had no effect in the English bill of rights? How is it a response to say "Of course it had no effect! The English put an embargo on guns before the revolution!" GREAT RESPONSE BRO. But seriously, please don't breed.

 

You sated: " Despite the fact that the exact wording of the amendment seems to indicate that its purpose was to maintain a well regulated militia. "

The facts say otherwise, an indication you don't know wtf you are talking about.

The second portion of your silly assertion is that we do not have the right to overthrow our government.

 

"The Constitution is not an instrument for the government to restrain the people, it is an instrument for the people to restrain the government." - Patrick Henry

"When the resolution of enslaving America was formed in Great Britain, the British Parliament was advised by an artful man, who was governor of Pennsylvania, to disarm the people; that it was the best and most effectual way to enslave them; but that they should not do it openly, but weaken them, and let them sink gradually..." - George Mason, Virginia Constitution Convention

Just sayin............

 

Treason must be the Liberal/Progressive/Democrat word of the month. Sadly they did a poor a job of explaining it as they did obamacare.


Treason is defined as: the offense of acting to overthrow one's government or to harm or kill its sovereign.



The LPD perspective on this seems to center on their unique definition of government. In their eyes is seems that the head of state and the political party in control of the government IS the government.


Conservative/Republicans seem to see it quite differently, recognizing the head of state and the political party to be servants of the people while the LPDs consider the people subservient to the elected leaders.


The government IS the Constitution and the System of laws and processes it defines.


I think we're a very long distance from an organized insurrection. The American Revolution started almost as soon as the first colonists landed here, remember, they didn't leave Jolly Old England because they were shipwreked on a three hour cruise. It took a very long time for the King to do the stuff that makes up the laundry list on the Declaration of Independence.


In the interim, the forefathers exchanged ideas and attempted to work within English law before casting their fate on revolution. I don't see that happening here. I see a lot of people who are pissed-off but the only talk I see or hear comes from the LPDs warning us of the impending revolution.


I hear the LPDs become louder whenever the administration is on rocky ground leading me to wonder if the planned revolution isn't a red herring they use to fire up their more stupid adherents to act more properly with each string tug.


An impending revolution or a fiction of some twisted opportunists looking to instill fear in the public to assist them in achieving their agenda?

I'm the NRA and I don't see the government as Jack Booted Thugs, more along the lines of Air Jordan Wearing Buffoons. The Jack Booted Thugs line was pointed at overzealous ATF agents abusing their position and power. Care to try impressing me that those jerks DIDN'T/Don't exist?

.

Not funny that I can disagree with you and your politics while refraining from attempting to speak for you or questioning your patriotism or loyalty. I find the current temporary custodian of the White House to be a reprehensible spoiled little boy with lacking the ability to lead a one car parade with the hood ornament planted between his butt cheeks and the people who follow him as fools. I demonstrate my love for my country by voicing my disdane for him and everything associated with him.

MY country is a place where speaking out is more important than getting along.... that's MY America and God help anyone who wants to destroy it. That BTW includes professional politicians and wannabees.

 

I posted this already, but I'll post it again just for you.

 

Treason in the united states is defined in the Constitution. Mayhaps you should read it.

 

I see. So you declare that we do have the right to overthrow the government because of a SCOTUS decision that says the purpose of the second amendment was not to maintain a well regulated militia.

 

Lincoln said it best...

"We, the people are the rightful masters of both Congress and the courts, not to overthrow the Constitution, but to overthrow men who pervert the Constitution." - Abraham Lincoln

- - - Updated - - -

See the post above....