Possible "reasons" for the Second Amendment

[nat4900]

Many historians and biographers have long tried to find a reason as to the why Founders chose to include within the Bill Of Rights, the most controversial amendment regarding the right for everyone to be armed. One must look at some of the papers, diaries and letters written by these Founders to discern the reason why the amendment was included….and is not causing so much discord.

The first issue regards whether the Founders wanted an “armed militia” to fight off an oppressive government….and for that, an objective observer would argue that in forming such a government, the Founders could not really foresee that what they THEMSELVES were forming in a government, could really prompt that government’s citizens to revolt against it.

So, what are the possible reasons for the second amendment, and do these other reasons make a bit more sense:

Well, as written by several of the Founders, a standing army was just too damn expensive to keep (and pay, and feed, and arm, and clothe)….So, arming common citizens, especially in the vast expanses of the new country, made a heck of a lot more sense.

Additionally, arming common citizens had some other “benefits” for the rather young country. For example:

1. There were always threats that those pesky Brits may want the colonies back

2. There was also the constant threat that those Natives who constantly saw their lands taken over by farmers and colonists may launch uprisings and the federal government had not the will, resources and/or capabilities to defend against such uprisings.

3. Finally, we must not also forget that we were a country of slave owners, and the threat of revolts by the slaves was also a key reason to encourage colonists to remain armed.

 

[Chuz Life]

Many historians and biographers have long tried to find a reason as to the why Founders chose to include within the Bill Of Rights, the most controversial amendment regarding the right for everyone to be armed. One must look at some of the papers, diaries and letters written by these Founders to discern the reason why the amendment was included….and is not causing so much discord.

The first issue regards whether the Founders wanted an “armed militia” to fight off an oppressive government….and for that, an objective observer would argue that in forming such a government, the Founders could not really foresee that what they THEMSELVES were forming in a government, could really prompt that government’s citizens to revolt against it.

So, what are the possible reasons for the second amendment, and do these other reasons make a bit more sense:

Well, as written by several of the Founders, a standing army was just too damn expensive to keep (and pay, and feed, and arm, and clothe)….So, arming common citizens, especially in the vast expanses of the new country, made a heck of a lot more sense.

Additionally, arming common citizens had some other “benefits” for the rather young country. For example:

1. There were always threats that those pesky Brits may want the colonies back

2. There was also the constant threat that those Natives who constantly saw their lands taken over by farmers and colonists may launch uprisings and the federal government had not the will, resources and/or capabilities to defend against such uprisings.

3. Finally, we must not also forget that we were a country of slave owners, and the threat of revolts by the slaves was also a key reason to encourage colonists to remain armed.

Supreme Court Review:

"Most plausibly, the intent of the drafters of the Second Amendment was to protect the individual’s right to bear arms. At the time the Second Amendment was written, it was common for individual-rights provisions of state constitutions to include a prefatory statement of purpose. The common-law rule inherited from England dictated that the effect of a preamble was only to clarify, and not to restrict the effect of, the operative part of the law.

Furthermore, the Founding Fathers were heavily influenced by English republican views on the relationship between arms and democracy. This theory, espoused by Blackstone and other seventeenth- and eighteenth-century English political theorists, held the citizen’s ability to bear arms and use them to defend his rights to be a crucial component of political independence. An armed population was vital to protect against both foreign threats and the threat of a standing army, which could become an instrument of governmental tyranny."

 

[nat4900]

An armed population was vital to protect against both foreign threats and the threat of a standing army, which could become an instrument of governmental tyranny."

So, your conclusion is that the Supreme Court was trying to ward off the possible "tyranny" from a democratically-elected, representative, 3-tiered government such as ours?

 

[Iceweasel]

There's nothing controversial about it. Libs can't stand it when you disagree with them so it immediately forms a controversy in their pea brains. The founders wrote quite a bit on the matter, we don't need to guess what they meant if the simple language was too much for you.

 

[Wyatt earp]

Many historians and biographers have long tried to find a reason as to the why Founders chose to include within the Bill Of Rights, the most controversial amendment regarding the right for everyone to be armed. One must look at some of the papers, diaries and letters written by these Founders to discern the reason why the amendment was included….and is not causing so much discord.

The first issue regards whether the Founders wanted an “armed militia” to fight off an oppressive government….and for that, an objective observer would argue that in forming such a government, the Founders could not really foresee that what they THEMSELVES were forming in a government, could really prompt that government’s citizens to revolt against it.

So, what are the possible reasons for the second amendment, and do these other reasons make a bit more sense:

Well, as written by several of the Founders, a standing army was just too damn expensive to keep (and pay, and feed, and arm, and clothe)….So, arming common citizens, especially in the vast expanses of the new country, made a heck of a lot more sense.

Additionally, arming common citizens had some other “benefits” for the rather young country. For example:

1. There were always threats that those pesky Brits may want the colonies back

2. There was also the constant threat that those Natives who constantly saw their lands taken over by farmers and colonists may launch uprisings and the federal government had not the will, resources and/or capabilities to defend against such uprisings.

3. Finally, we must not also forget that we were a country of slave owners, and the threat of revolts by the slaves was also a key reason to encourage colonists to remain armed.

The only controversy that exist is with morons like you who can not comprehend what the words "shall not be infringed" means.


.

 

[Desperado]

Many historians and biographers have long tried to find a reason as to the why Founders chose to include within the Bill Of Rights, the most controversial amendment regarding the right for everyone to be armed. One must look at some of the papers, diaries and letters written by these Founders to discern the reason why the amendment was included….and is not causing so much discord.

The first issue regards whether the Founders wanted an “armed militia” to fight off an oppressive government….and for that, an objective observer would argue that in forming such a government, the Founders could not really foresee that what they THEMSELVES were forming in a government, could really prompt that government’s citizens to revolt against it.

So, what are the possible reasons for the second amendment, and do these other reasons make a bit more sense:

Well, as written by several of the Founders, a standing army was just too damn expensive to keep (and pay, and feed, and arm, and clothe)….So, arming common citizens, especially in the vast expanses of the new country, made a heck of a lot more sense.

Additionally, arming common citizens had some other “benefits” for the rather young country. For example:

1. There were always threats that those pesky Brits may want the colonies back

2. There was also the constant threat that those Natives who constantly saw their lands taken over by farmers and colonists may launch uprisings and the federal government had not the will, resources and/or capabilities to defend against such uprisings.

3. Finally, we must not also forget that we were a country of slave owners, and the threat of revolts by the slaves was also a key reason to encourage colonists to remain armed.

Your reasons 1, 2 and 3 boil down to the same reason we need it today, Self Defense,
The Founding Fathers had the foresight that there would be wussies like you who have an un-natural fear of guns and they wanted to protect the majority of citizens from the likes of you.

 

[nat4900]

The only controversy that exist is with morons like you who can not comprehend what the words "shall not be infringe" means.

First of all the term is "infringed"...and the fact that you left out the well-regulated militia part shows what a dunce you surely are....but, carry on other nitwits like you from the right will surely think you're just a brilliant addition to their ilk.

 

[nat4900]

Your reasons 1, 2 and 3 boil down to the same reason we need it today, Self Defense,

Meaning that we still fear the Brits invading, Indian uprising and slave revolts, correct???

 

[Desperado]

Your reasons 1, 2 and 3 boil down to the same reason we need it today, Self Defense,

Meaning that we still fear the Brits invading, Indian uprising and slave revolts, correct???

I can;t tell if you are trying to be funny or that you are just that stupid.
I believe my response of "Self Defense" was adequate for 99% of this board,

 

[Wyatt earp]

The only controversy that exist is with morons like you who can not comprehend what the words "shall not be infringe" means.

First of all the term is "infringed"...and the fact that you left out the well-regulated militia part shows what a dunce you surely are....but, carry on other nitwits like you from the right will surely think you're just a brilliant addition to their ilk.

I was cooking a pot pie and posted it real fast.

Again moron, militia is every able male...it don't say well regulated military which they fucking had both back then

 

[Harry Dresden]

The only controversy that exist is with morons like you who can not comprehend what the words "shall not be infringe" means.

First of all the term is "infringed"...and the fact that you left out the well-regulated militia part shows what a dunce you surely are....but, carry on other nitwits like you from the right will surely think you're just a brilliant addition to their ilk.

ok the well regulated militia in the first half,we know what that means.....so who were the "people" mentioned in the second half?....because they are the ones mentioned who the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.....

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

The only controversy that exist is with morons like you who can not comprehend what the words "shall not be infringe" means.

First of all the term is "infringed"...and the fact that you left out the well-regulated militia part shows what a dunce you surely are....but, carry on other nitwits like you from the right will surely think you're just a brilliant addition to their ilk.

and the fact that you left out the well-regulated militia part

Going back to their original writings, what did they mean by "well-regulated"?

 

[nat4900]

ok the well regulated militia in the first half,we know what that means.....so who were the "people" mentioned in the second half?....because they are the ones mentioned who the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.....

The semantics for this poorly phrased amendment boils down to this....A "militia" is not a lifeless entity...it is indeed comprised of "people".

The intent of the O/P was not to deride the 2nd amendment....but only to offer some plausible other explanation for its inclusion, rather than having the NRA define it for us.

 

[Chuz Life]

An armed population was vital to protect against both foreign threats and the threat of a standing army, which could become an instrument of governmental tyranny."

So, your conclusion is that the Supreme Court was trying to ward off the possible "tyranny" from a democratically-elected, representative, 3-tiered government such as ours?

Supreme Court Review

"The relationship of the individual right to bear arms to the right of self-rule was discussed in conjunction with Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution, which empowers Congress to raise a standing army. Many were concerned that this provision provided no check on standing armies during times of peace. The militia, controlled by the several States, was seen as one important way to counter the threat of a standing army to the liberty of the people."

 

[miketx]

The United States, after coming off a very bloody but successful war against the British tyrants, in no way wanted the government to control who could be armed. It's a simple as that.

 

[Votto]

Many historians and biographers have long tried to find a reason as to the why Founders chose to include within the Bill Of Rights, the most controversial amendment regarding the right for everyone to be armed. One must look at some of the papers, diaries and letters written by these Founders to discern the reason why the amendment was included….and is not causing so much discord.

The first issue regards whether the Founders wanted an “armed militia” to fight off an oppressive government….and for that, an objective observer would argue that in forming such a government, the Founders could not really foresee that what they THEMSELVES were forming in a government, could really prompt that government’s citizens to revolt against it.

So, what are the possible reasons for the second amendment, and do these other reasons make a bit more sense:

Well, as written by several of the Founders, a standing army was just too damn expensive to keep (and pay, and feed, and arm, and clothe)….So, arming common citizens, especially in the vast expanses of the new country, made a heck of a lot more sense.

Additionally, arming common citizens had some other “benefits” for the rather young country. For example:

1. There were always threats that those pesky Brits may want the colonies back

2. There was also the constant threat that those Natives who constantly saw their lands taken over by farmers and colonists may launch uprisings and the federal government had not the will, resources and/or capabilities to defend against such uprisings.

3. Finally, we must not also forget that we were a country of slave owners, and the threat of revolts by the slaves was also a key reason to encourage colonists to remain armed.

The rights of the Founders were violated by the Brits.

Then the Brits went after their ammo.

Then they revolted.

So why would they not protect the right to bear arms dingleberry?

 

[Little-Acorn]

When all else fails, read the directions.

"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state...."

That's the reason they put the 2nd amendment into the Constitution.

Because the best way to get security and freedom, was to let every able-bodied citizen arm himself as he wanted to.

Now that wasn't so hard, was it?

 

[nat4900]

Going back to their original writings, what did they mean by "well-regulated"?

I'm 100% sure that the Founders were not talking about enemas.

 

[miketx]

Well regulated at that time meant to be kept in good working order.

 

[Votto]

When all else fails, read the directions.

"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state...."

That's the reason they put the 2nd amendment into the Constitution.

Because the best way to get security and freedom, was to let every able-bodied citizen arm himself as he wanted to.

Now that wasn't so hard, was it?

The problem here is, the Founders wanted to allow states to arm themselves because that helped ensure that state rights were not violated by the Federal government.

But today the idea of state rights is absurd since it has long been rejected by Progs as the Federal government pretty much dictates everything to them now, so the idea of states bearing arms to defend itself from the Federal government today seems absurd.