The Founding Fathers Explain The Second Amendment

[Rigby5]

It is for federal due process purposes. States have their own Constitutional clauses regarding equal protection.

That is the point.
Protection of individual rights from state abuse was not originally a federal responsibility.
It only became a federal responsibility after the Civil war, the 14th amendment, and blatant discrimination by the states.

But after the 14th amendment, the courts were forced to look at the 2nd amendment in a new light.
They found that the motivation for the 2nd amendment was mostly from individual defense rights.
Which then made some local and state gun control laws illegal.
Hence Heller and McDonald.
Which is not far enough.
Almost all gun control laws likely are illegal.

 

[danielpalos]

That is the point.
Protection of individual rights from state abuse was not originally a federal responsibility.
It only became a federal responsibility after the Civil war, the 14th amendment, and blatant discrimination by the states.

But after the 14th amendment, the courts were forced to look at the 2nd amendment in a new light.
They found that the motivation for the 2nd amendment was mostly from individual defense rights.
Which then made some local and state gun control laws illegal.
Hence Heller and McDonald.
Which is not far enough.
Almost all gun control laws likely are illegal.

It is still federal doctrine and States had no authority over entry into the Union after 1808.

Our Second Amendment is not about natural Individual rights to self-defense. It is about the security of a free State. It says so in the first clause.

This is a State's sovereign right: Subject only to the police power, the right of the individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. (Illinois State Constitution)

This is what natural (individual) rights look like:

All people are by nature free and independent and have inalienable rights. Among these are enjoying and defending life and liberty, acquiring, possessing, and protecting property, and pursuing and obtaining safety, happiness, and privacy. (California State Constitution)

 

[Rigby5]

It is still federal doctrine and States had no authority over entry into the Union after 1808.

Our Second Amendment is not about natural Individual rights to self-defense. It is about the security of a free State. It says so in the first clause.

This is a State's sovereign right: Subject only to the police power, the right of the individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. (Illinois State Constitution)

This is what natural (individual) rights look like:

All people are by nature free and independent and have inalienable rights. Among these are enjoying and defending life and liberty, acquiring, possessing, and protecting property, and pursuing and obtaining safety, happiness, and privacy. (California State Constitution)

States and individuals always have authority over union membership if the union violates is contractual agreements and obligations to uphold rights.

I agree the 2nd amendment is not about natural individual rights to self-defense, but it does not matter because the 2nd amendment still precludes any and all federal weapons jurisdiction.

I agree the natural individual right to weapons for self defense comes from state constitutions and law.
Problem is people are claiming federal laws supersede state law, and that is not true regarding something like weapons, where the feds were explicitly to be denied any jurisdiction, and states were to have total jurisdiction.
In the case of weapons, state law was supposed to completely supersede federal law.
Same would be true of drugs, medicine, etc.
The feds are way out of bounds.

 

[danielpalos]

States and individuals always have authority over union membership if the union violates is contractual agreements and obligations to uphold rights.

There are procedures to distinguish loyal patriots from just plain rebels without a Cause.

 

[Rigby5]

There are procedures to distinguish loyal patriots from just plain rebels without a Cause.

Yes there is.
The procedures are to compare what a government does, with what it is supposed to legally be constrained by.
Such as a constitution.
And this government is way over the top.
Federal weapons, medical, and drug laws are just plain illegal.
But Vietnam, WMD lies about Iraq, the invasion of Afghanistan, etc. , are all just hugely immoral war crimes.

I don't blame the Afghans for being angry with the US.
We reneged, cheated, stole, and murdered them.
They were totally innocent.

The only to not rebel against this horrendously corrupt and evil government is that lots of people would get hurt, it likely would fail, and things then could be even worse.
But legally this government is totally criminal.

 

[danielpalos]

Yes there is.
The procedures are to compare what a government does, with what it is supposed to legally be constrained by.
Such as a constitution.
And this government is way over the top.
Federal weapons, medical, and drug laws are just plain illegal.
But Vietnam, WMD lies about Iraq, the invasion of Afghanistan, etc. , are all just hugely immoral war crimes.

I don't blame the Afghans for being angry with the US.
We reneged, cheated, stole, and murdered them.
They were totally innocent.

The only to not rebel against this horrendously corrupt and evil government is that lots of people would get hurt, it likely would fail, and things then could be even worse.
But legally this government is totally criminal.

Our First Amendment and State equivalents apply.

 

[Rigby5]

Our First Amendment and State equivalents apply.

I don't see how the First Amendment helps?
{...
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.[3]
...}
We had over a million people peacefully assembling to protest the Vietnam war, and it did nothing.
There is no means of petitioning the Government any more.
They are too big and don't care.
Did anything happen after it was proven the Government had lied about Iraqi WMD?
Will anything happen after it is proven the Government lied about Afghanistan?
Petitioning only works if you have good government.
We don't.
DC is all crooks and liars.

 

[AZrailwhale]

All persons naturally born in the US after 1808 were citizens.

In 1808 slaves were property, not persons. Property can have no rights.

 

[Rigby5]

In 1808 slaves were property, not persons. Property can have no rights.

Oddly enough slaves were counted as 3/5ths of a person when it came to calculating the electoral college votes of slave states.

Three-fifths Compromise - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[ThunderKiss1965]

"Case closed Progs."

Also wrong.

‘Progressives’ take no issue with the Second Amendment; they support current Second Amendment jurisprudence as codified in Heller and McDonald.

Indeed, ‘progressives’ own firearms, enjoy the shooting sports, and possess firearms for lawful self-defense.

‘Progressives’ also correctly understand the fact that nowhere in the text, history, or case law of the Second Amendment does the Constitution ‘authorize’ the overthrow through force of arms of a lawfully elected government reflecting the will of the people.

The Second Amendment does not ‘trump’ the First Amendment.

The Framers did not amend the Constitution to facilitate the destruction of the Republic they just created.

And yet Progressives are trying to ban certain firearms that citizens would use to defend themselves from a tyrannical government and the 2nd Amendment does mention that the security of a Free State depends on the right of the people to bear arms.

 

[Rigby5]

"Case closed Progs."

Also wrong.

‘Progressives’ take no issue with the Second Amendment; they support current Second Amendment jurisprudence as codified in Heller and McDonald.

Indeed, ‘progressives’ own firearms, enjoy the shooting sports, and possess firearms for lawful self-defense.

‘Progressives’ also correctly understand the fact that nowhere in the text, history, or case law of the Second Amendment does the Constitution ‘authorize’ the overthrow through force of arms of a lawfully elected government reflecting the will of the people.

The Second Amendment does not ‘trump’ the First Amendment.

The Framers did not amend the Constitution to facilitate the destruction of the Republic they just created.

Wrong, the Founders had just shit-canned 2 governments in a row, first the oppressive British government, and then the Articles of Confederation that were too weak.
They were going to try one a little more powerful, but were very cautious and were more than willing to rebel once more if necessary.
May I remind you that we had a long history of rebellions, like the Whisky Rebellion, Shay's Rebellion, etc.

The Amendments were not to fix an existing government, but to get any states to sign up at all.
Until they added the Bill of Rights, not a single state was willing to sign on the the Union.
The Bill of Rights was entirely about putting strict limits on federal jurisdiction, with the 2nd amendment prohibiting any and all federal jurisdiction over firearms.

 

[Rigby5]

And yet Progressives are trying to ban certain firearms that citizens would use to defend themselves from a tyrannical government and the 2nd Amendment does mention that the security of a Free State depends on the right of the people to bear arms.

Progressives would never support gun control.
Gun control is always from authoritarians who want government to have a monopoly on the means of power.

 

[Rigby5]

What are the criteria of ‘tyranny?’

Absent consensus as to what ‘tyranny’ actually is, any armed insurrection against a constitutionally elected government is nothing more than treason.

Absent the consent of the majority of the people that government has in fact become ‘tyrannical,’ any armed insurrection against a constitutionally elected government is nothing but lawless rebellion.

And the notion that government will refrain from becoming ‘tyrannical’ because it ‘fears’ an armed citizenry is as ridiculous as it is wrong; as already established, untrained civilians armed with nothing but semi-automatic weapons are no match for a professional standing army – the ‘Red Dawn’ motif is an idiotic rightwing fantasy.

Totally wrong.
For example, when the government lied to us about WMD in Iraq, they forfeit any authority they had, and should all have been prosecuted for war crimes.
When the government commits such heinous crimes, as the citizens who are the source of the government's power and authority, we are required to destroy it our of our responsibility for creating the criminal organization.

Nor do you know anything about asymmetric warfare.
Not once has the US military ever won against an insurgency.
They can used tank, missiles, and bombers because they do not know who the insurgent are.
Vietnam and Afghanistan are both proof of that.
And if it came down to it, likely the majority of the military would be in the side of the rebellion.

And let us not forget that the list of violations by the government is infinitely long, like Prohibition, the War on Drugs, mandatory sentences, asset forfeiture, taxation of felons without representation, federal gun control, federal medical laws, etc.

 

[danielpalos]

I don't see how the First Amendment helps?
{...
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.[3]
...}
We had over a million people peacefully assembling to protest the Vietnam war, and it did nothing.
There is no means of petitioning the Government any more.
They are too big and don't care.
Did anything happen after it was proven the Government had lied about Iraqi WMD?
Will anything happen after it is proven the Government lied about Afghanistan?
Petitioning only works if you have good government.
We don't.
DC is all crooks and liars.

You need standing and a Cause.

 

[danielpalos]

In 1808 slaves were property, not persons. Property can have no rights.

After 1808 natural born persons were citizens of the Union.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Progressives would never support gun control.
Gun control is always from authoritarians who want government to have a monopoly on the means of power.

You contradict yourself.

 

[Rigby5]

You need standing and a Cause.

All taxpayers have standing and cause when we spent trillions on an illegal war , causing a recession.
All the half million imprisoned by the War on Drugs have standing and cause.

The problem is the judiciary are selected from the wealthy elite, who simply do not care.
Government crimes generate trillions in profits and that creates a feedback system of corruption.
Eventually there is no choice but to start over.
That is not desirable, but still inevitable eventually.
After some point, to not rebel is to make one guilty of complicity.
Anyone who does not understand that armed rebellion is an essential part of any good government cycle, is just fooling themselves.

 

[Rigby5]

You contradict yourself.

What I am saying is that people in favor of gun control are not progressives, but authoritarians.
When Hillary supported gun control, she declared herself as authoritarian, not left wing.

 

[danielpalos]

All taxpayers have standing and cause when we spent trillions on an illegal war , causing a recession.
All the half million imprisoned by the War on Drugs have standing and cause.

You have a First Amendment.

 

[Rigby5]

You have a First Amendment.

That is the point.
That is like having a complaint department at a store, that does nothing.
When all peaceful means of conflict resolution have failed, there is no other choice than to resort to force.
That is simple historic reality.
It always has to happen eventually.
The fact force is not desirable does not change the fact it eventually becomes necessary.
And eventually this is always true.
As far as those murdered or imprisoned by illegal wars, abusive police, etc., it is already way beyond the point where rebellion is warranted.
The only reason why we should not already be committed to armed rebellion is not that it is unwarranted on a scale of justice, but that not enough have been abused by the system for a rebellion to currently have much chance of succeeding.
The only reason to not wage armed rebellion right now, is not legal, moral, or ethical, but ONLY due to the practical reason that is would likely fail.