The second amendment doesn't give you the right to overthrow the gov't.

[Renew Deal]

Amendment II

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.


There is nothing there that sounds like you can be more than a "well refulated militia."

What happens when the gov't starts regulating? Some republican in the street with a gun will get arrested. He has no right to overthrow/fight the gov't.

So what is the point of the 2nd amendment if you can't do anything with it?

[wtmusic]

1. 'Well-regulated' is the key

No ordinary citizen has the right to possess nukes, or ebola. Nor should they.

In principle the same applies to assault weapons.

[lastknowngood]

2. an unarmed population is asking for slavery

n/t

[denverbill]

12. Many if not most Iraqis owned guns under Saddam.

And no Russians had guns when the USSR was overthrown.

Being armed is no protection against enslavement, and being unarmed is no impediment to gaining freedom.

An armed uprising against the US govt would result in a pitiful slaughter. Rifles have no chance against helicopters, tanks, and aircraft.

[FeebMaster]

18. Sure they do.

"Rifles have no chance against helicopters, tanks, and aircraft."


Use your imagination.

[Taverner]

20. Those are bad arguments

Since when the USSR was overthrown, the palace guards didn't have guns.

I'll agree if its us vs. the US military, we're fucked. But if the brownshirts take over and they do come for me I'll want to take a few out before they take me down.

[tom_paine]

21. So what is going on in Iraq, then

Should these deluded souls stop trying to remove the yoke of Bushegik Oppression from their necks because "they have no chance"?

I disagree with the logic of your position. Iraq itself gives lie to your assertion.

[denverbill]

30. You're talking about two different things.

Foreign occupation versus internal revolution.

Rifles work quite well when used by insurgents against occupiers. Eventually, occupiers get tired of the cost in lives and money. Insurgents have no trouble just shooting any occupier they see.

How would you do that? Would you just shoot any American soldier you saw or anyone you thought was a cop or FBI agent? How could you do that when the soldier might be your neighbor or your friend's son? You couldn't in good conscience fight a guerilla war against your own countrymen, IMO.

The only alternative to a guerilla war is 'hole up and shoot it out'. That doesn't sound like a great alternative either.

[tom_paine]

35. First off I am not going to discuss what I would or wouldn't

Big Brother is Watching.

You are correct there is a distinction, but it is a minor semantic one, IMHO.

What you said translates, IMHO into, "They will fight longer and harder."

But both Iraq and any potential uprising here (and let me say again God I pray that we are wrong and the Busheviks don't force us to open Pandora's Box) are essentially the same otherwise.

Remove the semantics, and you have two armed uprisings against a heavily armed occupying force.

We will have to agree to disagree here, unless I've changed your mind.

[denverbill]

42. Sorry, no such luck on changing my mind.

In the event that a new American revolution becomes necessary, the only way it will be successful is if it's like the most recent Russian revolution. The reason that one succeeded was because the Soviet troops refused to fire on unarmed civilians, unlike the Czarist troops, the early communists, or the Chinese at Tianamen.

US troops are particularly opposed to firing on Americans. There have been times (Kent State, the Bonus March, labor strikes) but I can't see many US troops being willing to mow down 100,000 protestors.

IMO, US troops would have no problem gunning down armed revolutionaries. They would have a major problem gunning down unarmed peaceful protestors.

[tom_paine]

44. On that I do agree

Absolutely peaceful protest first, barring any kind of craziness first (such as the Freepers beginning their program of the random murder of Liberals and the Bushevik Injustice Department giving them "the KKK in Mississippi in 1930" treatment).

And I don't wish to change your mind. I am perfectly happy to agree to disagree, Bill.

We are not Busheviks. We are not Freeper Brownshirts. We can disagree without rancor. You don't have to pass a litmus test.

So let's agree to disagree and call it a day, my friend...

:hi:

[MrBenchley]

13. Whereas just look at these armed freedom lovers...

[fob]

3. You're right about the 2nd Amendment. The right you speak of

is in the Declaration of Independence.

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.

[tom_paine]

5. Hah! You beat me to it by ONE MINUTE!

Me and my bloody spellchecking!

:evilgrin:

[fob]

11. Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition!!

nt

[RhodaGrits]

37. I've always thought that *this* is why we have 2nd amendment rights -

not because we have a right to shoot squirrels w/ semi-automatic weapons.

[tom_paine]

4. No the Declaration of Independence does

WE hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness -- That to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed, 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...

http://lcweb2.loc.gov/const/declar.html

NOTE TO OHS THUGS: I am NOT advocating the Overthrow of the Constitution and Bill of Rights! I am also hoping your Bushevik Masters do not force normal, average, moderate Citizens to start to seriously consider this. God Help Us all if you allow things to get so bad and perpetrate such Evil in the Name of Your Masters that such things come to pass.

[DebJ]

6. I guess the words you are looking for are in the Declaration of Independen

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal. That they are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights. That among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. To secure these rights governments are instituted among men deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. WHEN ANY FORM OF GOVERNMENT BECOMES DESTRUCTIVE OF THESE THINGS, IT IS THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO ALTER OR ABOLISH IT, AND TO INSTITUTE NEW GOVERNMENT, laying its' foundations on such principles and organizing so as to form what to them shall seem most likely to protect their safety, and happiness.
(Did that from memory may be off a word or two).
Also there's the line about 'it is their right, it is their DUTY to throw off such' government and institute new laws for their future security...

Here's my question: have any laws or legal precendents been set based upon the words in the Declaration of Independence, using that as the source, as opposed to the Constitution itself?

[tom_paine]

17. No, but does that matter. It isn't the law, but it is a direct suggestion

handed down to the Founding Fathers to us, should we find ourseleves in a similar situation as they were.

Thus...

[Bake]

28. It's not "the law"

It's higher than that -- it is a self-evident truth.

Bake

[Serenity-NOW]

7. Declaration of Independence works for me

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. --That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, <b>--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,</b> 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.

How's that work for you? Now you see what the militia is all about?

[Guaranteed]

8. Yup, there it is. nt

[sangh0]

15. NO, it doesn't

The Declaration of Independence is not a legal document, it's an historical one. The "right" to overthrow the govt may be recognized by Jefferson (and others) but it's not recognized by our legal system.

[tom_paine]

19. So? Lots of commonsense things aren't recognized by our Legal System

So what if the Declarartion is not law? The thing it mentions is a response to grotesque lawlessness by King George, anyway.

You are technically correct, and yet incorrect.

[sangh0]

25. "You are technically correct, and yet incorrect." - Good answer

I see you understand my point, which addresses the assertion made by this thread's subject line.

[Guaranteed]

27. By definition you go outside the law to overthrow it.

No system of law puts in a clause for overthrowing itself.

Our forefathers understood that. I believe they would say that our inalienable rights allow us to overthrow our government should our grievances and slights against those rights become serious and plentiful enough. In fact, that's what the D of I says.

[sangh0]

32. Ding! Ding!

We have a winner.

Remember? "The Constitution is not a suicide pact"

If you want to overthrow the govt, don't expect the govt to help you

[Guaranteed]

33. The Constitution gives us the TOOLS to do so.

And the D of I gives us the right.

On edit: Scratch that- the D of I RECOGNIZES the right.

[sangh0]

36. It doesn't give us the tools to overthrow the govt

The 2nd is the only Amend that explains itself, and while it does explain that the 2nd is necessary to maintain our govt, it is silent on the need to overthrow our govt.

[Guaranteed]

39. It says it's there to maintain a free state.

So, yes, the guns it gives us the right to keep are there to protect us from, and possibly overthrow if given due cause, the government.

[Guaranteed]

23. It's kind of beside the point if it's "recognized by our legal system"

when you're OVERTHROWING the legal system. That's the whole idea- the legal system is so flawed as to be irrepairable, therefore, it must be torn down and built up again.

[sangh0]

26. You're missing the point

People defend the 2nd by arguing that it was meant to give them the ability to overthrow the govt, which doesn't make much sense when you consider that our laws do not give one the right to overthrow the govt.

You may think that, under certain circumstances, overthrowing the govt is a completely appropriate and moral thing to do. I would agree. However, just because we think it's appropriate and moral doesn't mean that the law condones it.

It doesn't

[Guaranteed]

29. No, it's much more than that.

For one thing, it guarantees the rights to own the TOOLS for overthrowing the government- not the right to overthrow the government. That's not what 2nd Amendment advocates argue.

Secondly, it's a deterrent. It lets the government know that we are not defenseless, and keeps them within their bounds.

That's what the 2nd Amendment is for. It's the D of I that recognizes our inalienable rights and the situations in which it is okay to overthrow the government.

On edit: I'm not saying the "law" allows it- of course the law doesn't allow it. The D of I (which IS a legal document- our very first) does, as it is part of duty as people to get rid of any government that no longer serves us.

[sangh0]

34. Not quite

it guarantees the rights to own the TOOLS for overthrowing the government

Though that is it's practical effect, that is not what the 2nd does. It guarantees the governments power to assemble a force to protect itself and it's people. The fact that it gives the people the tools to overthrow the govt is incidental, and was never a justification for the inclusion of the 2nd.

That's what the 2nd Amendment is for.

No it's not. The 2nd is the only Amendment that explains why it's there. It says nothing about overthrowing the govt. It does say something about how a well-regulated militia is necessary to maintaining the govt, but nothing about overthrowing it.

It's the D of I that recognizes our inalienable rights and the situations in which it is okay to overthrow the government.

Right, we have a moral and inalienable right to overthrow a govt, but we do not have a legal right to do so.

[Guaranteed]

38. No.

"Though that is it's practical effect, that is not what the 2nd does. It guarantees the governments power to assemble a force to protect itself and it's people. The fact that it gives the people the tools to overthrow the govt is incidental, and was never a justification for the inclusion of the 2nd."

I dismiss that as the garbage that it is.

"No it's not. The 2nd is the only Amendment that explains why it's there. It says nothing about overthrowing the govt. It does say something about how a well-regulated militia is necessary to maintaining the govt, but nothing about overthrowing it."

Yes, it is. It's there "being necessary to the security of a ***free state,***..." More garbage from you.

"Right, we have a moral and inalienable right to overthrow a govt, but we do not have a legal right to do so."

I'd have to assume that all of our inalienable rights are also legal rights, as they supercede legality. The government can not infringe upon our inalienable rights with law, and if they ARE, as you say they are, they should be overthrown.

[tom_paine]

45. Well said, BullGooseLoony!

Although I wouldn't quite characterize what sangh0 said as "garbage".

Misinterpretations perhaps, but then interpretations are always a matter of opinion.

Let's be civil here.

[whistle]

9. Well, that same republican can stick that gun up your nose...

...and pull the trigger though, if he/she believes you are a threat to the security and freedoms of this country under Amendment 2. So for that reason, republicans will never let the second amendment be watered down or dropped. What we as sane and civilized members of society have to do to insure our freedoms not be taken away by zealots like the NRA, is to preserve all of the constitution and repeal the Patriot Act.:kick:

[MrBenchley]

10. The Second Amendment confers no individual right...

As the courts have ruled again and again...

"So what is the point of the 2nd amendment"
Citizen soldiers...something that's overlooked in the age of $1,500-a-day mercenaries for Halliburton..

[Serenity-NOW]

14. seems pretty clear to me...

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. --Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.

[Gothmog]

16. Bad law out there

The Fifth Cir. has a horrible decision out there that holds that there is an individual right to bear arms under the Second Amendment. There is some bad language buried in the decision that part of the reason for an individual right to bear arms is the ability to protect oneself from the govt. Some of the briefs in this case were basically arguing that the Second Amendment means that one must have arms to be able to overthrow the government if you need to.

This is a long and poorly written opinion and much of the holding on an individual right under the Second Amendment may be dicta or not binding because the Court ended up affirming the conviction of the defendant by holding that his right to have a gun was inferior to the right of the government to regulate gun possession in a divorce proceeding.

Tribe in his latest treatice has taken the position that there is a weak individual right to bear arms but that this is a weak right and that all existing gun control legistlation is constitutional.

[Selwynn]

22. Try the Declaration of Independance -

[On the Road]

24. The Second Amendment Makes a Distinction

between the people at a local or state level and the government at a national level. The militia belong to the people at the local level. The second amendment grants the right for the people to collectively bear arms not only against foreign enemies but against the federal government.

Seems like a strange distinction today, but it wasn't then. I think the Whiskey Rebellion (although it came a few years later) was the type of situation envisioned.

You could argue, BTW, that the second amendment gave the Confederate states the right to secede. The fact that Lincoln forced denied them secession meant that they were no longer "free states."

[sangh0]

31. The militia does not beling to "the people"

The militia is *comprised* of the people (or more accurately, those who are capable of using a weapon) but they do not belong to themselves. On the other hand, there's the "well-regulated militia", and that is controlled by the states, but in certain circumstances (ex insurrections) the Fed govt can take control of it. IOW, you got just about every point wrong

1 - the militia is not controlled at the local level
2 - the well-regulated militia is not controlled at the local level
3 - the 2nd Amend doesn't grant the people the right to collectively bear arms against anyone or anything.
4 - The 2nd gives no state the right to secede.
5 - the term "free states" refers to states that didn't allow slavery before the Civil War

[On the Road]

43. Well, You Missed Every Point I Made

Granted it's a novel way of looking at it. But I don't have time to argue it right now.

Suffice it to say that your view of point #2 should call into question your whole interpretation: you are saying that the right to bear arms "doesn't grant the people the right to collectively bear arms against anyone or anything"?

[tom_paine]

47. You are wrong about everything but #4, IMHO

(how did THAT Straw Man find it's way here?)

#1 -- the militia as it existed during the time of the Founding Fathers certainly WAS controlled at the local level. It could be called upon by the Colonial Army (the Founding dads initially had great fear of a Strong Central Government w/Standing Army and refused repeatedly Washington's entreaties to proivde him with the framework of one in 1777-8.

You need to read the history of the Burgoyne campaign which, I believe ended at Saratoga. Read the Requests from Washington (not orders, requests) for the militia to join the fight. You are mistaken. Here are some links to get you started, but you would most benefit by reading some books on that particular campaign and on militias of old in general:

http://www.americanrevolution.com/WinningIndCamp77.htm

http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/gwhtml/1777.html

#2 -- same as #1, only a little less incorrect, I suppose, though that, too, is a matter of interpretation

#3 -- If you remove the "preamble" of the 2nd Amendment, the text reads "The Right of The People To Keep and Bear Arms, shall Not be Infringed"

Whatever else you make think of the 2nd, I think we can both agree that the "preamble" decrees nothing, contains no "action" verbs or commans, and is explanatory in nature. Drop it out and the language describing the Right...the "action verbs" and such is very clear.

Combine that with the errors you have made regarding the nature of militia in the 18th Century, and I believe my argument is sound.

#5 -- Man, you got this one so very wrong! It says "free State" (capitalized) not States. You are mistaken again. This clearly refers to the society as a whole...the State (which wasn;t so ominous sounding in 1789 before Totalitarianism).

Reread it and see if you agree.

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.

Hopefully, you don't have an ego problem and can admit wrongness because this isn't a matter of interpretation. You are just wrong on that one. Or do you think the Slave States weren't included in that Amendment (someone should tell the Judicial Arm of the Coup, formerly the Supreme Court, about that then).

[wasichu]

40. Does this ring a bell?

".....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."

[Guaranteed]

41. LOL they even capitalized it nt

[Jacobin]

46. Bingo

[Columbia]

48. Federalist 46

http://lcweb2.loc.gov/const/fed/fed_46.html