Where is it written that 2nd Amend is to keep Govt. in Check?

[g5000]

Wingnuts keep saying the Second Amendment is to keep the government in check.

Where is this written in the Constitution?

Whenever someone says, "Show me where X is in the Constitution", they are speaking from ignorance. Whether it is about gay marriage or automobiles or guns.

There is a whole body of evidence as to the intents behind the words in the Constitution, as well as an even larger body of legal precedents which flesh out those words.

One which specifically addresses your question can be found in the Federalist Papers written by the men who knew better than any of us what the intentions behind the second amendment were. This one in particular was written by James Madison, my favorite of the Publius triad:

Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of. Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms. And it is not certain, that with this aid alone they would not be able to shake off their yokes. But were the people to possess the additional advantages of local governments chosen by themselves, who could collect the national will and direct the national force, and of officers appointed out of the militia, by these governments, and attached both to them and to the militia, it may be affirmed with the greatest assurance, that the throne of every tyranny in Europe would be speedily overturned in spite of the legions which surround it.

The Avalon Project : Federalist No 46

 

[martybegan]

The 2nd reads as militias fighting for America not fighting the American government.

It most certainly does not. It says we have the right to keep and bear arms and to form militias because that is necessary for a free state to remain secure. It does not limit who might encroach on that security and as we all know, tyranny can come from within one's own government as well as from foreign invaders.

Similar to the oath taken by the military against all enemies, foreign or domestic.

It is not impossible that a domestic enemy can take the form of the government, either at the state or federal level.

 

[eflatminor]

The founding fathers did not envision the need for a standing Army at the time.

Okay, well, that's a lie.

Soldiers and Liberty: The Debate Over Standing Armies and Militias in Early America:
The Federalist Papers Study Guide : Soldiers and Liberty: The Debate Over Standing Armies and Militias in Early America | GradeSaver

 

[g5000]

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms. The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government"

-- Thomas Jefferson, 1 Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

"...to disarm the people - that was the best and most effectual way to enslave them."

-- George Mason


Those took me about a minute to find.

hmmmmm. That didn't make it into the Constitution did it?

People who ask these questions really, really don't get it.

Our government is based on the belief that our rights are PROTECTED, not GRANTED. Dipshits who feel we have to justify or prove we need a gun before we have the right to that gun are idiots.

It is the other way around.

So show me in the Constitution where you have the right to take my guns or keep me from buying a gun.

 

[nodoginnafight]

as well as an even larger body of legal precedents which flesh out those words.

Pretty telling don't you think that in 230 years no one - not one single person - has ever successfully argued this point in a court of law.

I've heard some pretty goofy Constitutional theories argued, but NEVER this one.

Wonder why that is???????

But you guys go right ahead. I'll be watching closely (through tears of laughter)

 

[eflatminor]

Our government is based on the belief that our rights are PROTECTED, not GRANTED. Dipshits who feel we have to justify or prove we need a gun before we have the right to that gun are idiots.

 

[Si modo]

Wingnuts keep saying the Second Amendment is to keep the government in check.

Where is this written in the Constitution?

That's one of the reasons for it. Alexander Hamilton wrote about that aspect of the 2nd.

 

[nodoginnafight]

So show me in the Constitution where you have the right to take my guns or keep me from buying a gun.

Don't have to. All we have to do is pass a law and enforce it. Then it's up to YOU to prove your Constitutional rights have been violated.

THAT'S the way it works.

 

[martybegan]

So show me in the Constitution where you have the right to take my guns or keep me from buying a gun.

Don't have to. All we have to do is pass a law and enforce it. Then it's up to YOU to prove your Constitutional rights have been violated.

THAT'S the way it works.

Actually a right should require the government to PROVE it has the ability in the first place to pass such a law.

This is why we are in the mess we are today.

 

[Si modo]

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms. The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government"

-- Thomas Jefferson, 1 Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

"...to disarm the people - that was the best and most effectual way to enslave them."

-- George Mason


Those took me about a minute to find.

If these were such important sentiments, shared by the founders, why are they not included in the Constitution?

I shouldn't have to read Jefferson's private papers to learn his feelings. On page 334, no less.

I doubt any of the founders thought the wording of the second would confuse so many a few centuries later.

 

[eflatminor]

So show me in the Constitution where you have the right to take my guns or keep me from buying a gun.

Don't have to. All we have to do is pass a law and enforce it. Then it's up to YOU to prove your Constitutional rights have been violated.

THAT'S the way it works.

Well that's easy. Look at the enumerated powers. You'll not find among the powers granted to the federal government the right to confiscate arms. Therefore, that would be illegal.

Then further, to drive the point home, there's the 2nd amendment.

 

[Oddball]

So show me in the Constitution where you have the right to take my guns or keep me from buying a gun.

Don't have to. All we have to do is pass a law and enforce it. Then it's up to YOU to prove your Constitutional rights have been violated.

THAT'S the way it works.

Wrong...The laws were to be passed under the constraints of the Constitution, not as a way to circumvent and rewrite it.

 

[buckeye45_73]

Wingnuts keep saying the Second Amendment is to keep the government in check.

Where is this written in the Constitution?

wow so why do you like to give up your freedom? You know if they take guns, they may then start executing homosexuals like you......liberals got to understand this.....who am I kidding, they trust politicians....bwahahahha

 

[jillian]

So show me in the Constitution where you have the right to take my guns or keep me from buying a gun.

Don't have to. All we have to do is pass a law and enforce it. Then it's up to YOU to prove your Constitutional rights have been violated.

THAT'S the way it works.

Wrong...The laws get passed under the constrains of the Constitution, not as a way to circumvent and rewrite it.

your right to own a specific gun isn't constitutionally protected

same as one has the right to an attorney, but not the attorney of one's choice

 

[eflatminor]

So show me in the Constitution where you have the right to take my guns or keep me from buying a gun.

Don't have to. All we have to do is pass a law and enforce it. Then it's up to YOU to prove your Constitutional rights have been violated.

THAT'S the way it works.

Wrong...The laws get passed under the constraints of the Constitution, not as a way to circumvent and rewrite it.

It's as though some here completely missed the entire idea behind the founding of America and it's Constitution. They don't seem to get that the government is restrained by limited powers granted to it. They appear to believe government can do whatever it likes as long as there's no prohibition against that action in the Constitution. They have it completely backwards!

Were these guys absent from grade school civics and history?

 

[Si modo]

So show me in the Constitution where you have the right to take my guns or keep me from buying a gun.

Don't have to. All we have to do is pass a law and enforce it. Then it's up to YOU to prove your Constitutional rights have been violated.

THAT'S the way it works.

Um, no. That is not how it works. If laws are unconstitutional, they are not laws, thus nothing about them is enforceable.

According to your idea of how our government works, Congress could pass a law that says everyone in Fairfax County, VA must be executed by the end of next week. So, all these persons in FFX County would have to prove they shouldn't be executed by the end of next week.

That's absurd.

 

[eflatminor]

your right to own a specific gun isn't constitutionally protected

Actually it is. Exactly what part of "shall not be infringed" don't you get?

 

[edthecynic]

 

[Truthmatters]

your right to own a specific gun isn't constitutionally protected

Actually it is. Exactly what part of "shall not be infringed" don't you get?

when will you FACE that the scotus already decided this?


Your own right wing guys said they are perfectly constitutional

 

[buckeye45_73]

Don't have to. All we have to do is pass a law and enforce it. Then it's up to YOU to prove your Constitutional rights have been violated.

THAT'S the way it works.

Wrong...The laws get passed under the constrains of the Constitution, not as a way to circumvent and rewrite it.

your right to own a specific gun isn't constitutionally protected

same as one has the right to an attorney, but not the attorney of one's choice

Uh Jilian you cant be that stupid...you just like taking away Constitutional rights that you dont like.....again dont be a retard